Latest / The Ben Ferguson Podcast / Swalwell Quits as Scandal Rips, Can Republicans Reconcile behind Reconciliation & the Tax Plan Sending NYC Packing Week In Review

Transcript

Swalwell Quits as Scandal Rips, Can Republicans Reconcile behind Reconciliation & the Tax Plan Sending NYC Packing Week In Review · The Ben Ferguson Podcast

0:00
Speaker 1: Welcome in his verdict with Ted Cruz. Week in Review,
0:03
Speaker 1: Ben Ferguson with you, and here are the stories that
0:05
Speaker 1: we talked about this week that you may have missed.
0:07
Speaker 1: First up, Eric Swalwell ends his campaign. We predicted it.
0:12
Speaker 1: He's now not only out of the governor's race, but
0:15
Speaker 1: out of Congress. We'll give you the details. Also, why
0:19
Speaker 1: is it so difficult for the GOP to unify behind
0:22
Speaker 1: a reconciliation bill. We'll explain that to you as well.
0:26
Speaker 1: And finally, Mandani saying what we all expected, another massive
0:31
Speaker 1: tax hike in New York City, going after those he
0:35
Speaker 1: says that aren't paying their fair share. It's the weekend
0:38
Speaker 1: Review and it starts right now, and I want to
0:41
Speaker 1: move on to this other story, the headline that broke
0:45
Speaker 1: on Sunday evening, and I'm going to read this headline
0:47
Speaker 1: from CNN. Eric Swalwell ends campaign for California governor after
0:52
Speaker 1: sexual misconduct allegations. He said Sunday would withdraw from the
0:57
Speaker 1: California governor's race in the wake of allegations of sexual
1:00
Speaker 1: conduct that led to a nearly immediate campaign collapse as
1:04
Speaker 1: staffers quit on him. Prominent Democratic supporters now urging him
1:08
Speaker 1: to drop out. He then put out a statement on
1:10
Speaker 1: x saying I am suspending my campaign for governor to
1:13
Speaker 1: my family, staff, friends and supporters. I'm deeply sorry for
1:17
Speaker 1: mistakes in judgment I've made in my past. Then he
1:22
Speaker 1: says I will fight the serious false allegations that have
1:26
Speaker 1: been made, but that's my fight, not a campaigns after that,
1:32
Speaker 1: we found out even more about what's happening, and that
1:35
Speaker 1: is the Manhattan District Attorney's Office has opened a criminal
1:38
Speaker 1: investigation into sexual assault allegations. The key claim is a
1:43
Speaker 1: former staff for alleged assault in twenty twenty four, apparently
1:47
Speaker 1: New York, and another earlier incident in twenty nineteen. Prosecutors
1:52
Speaker 1: are reportedly reviewing evidence asking for additional witnesses to come forward,
1:56
Speaker 1: as the AP put it, and that is the most
1:59
Speaker 1: seriously exposure right now, because it could lead to criminal charges.
2:03
Speaker 1: And then you have multiple sexual misconduct allegations. At least
2:06
Speaker 1: four women have accused Swallwell of misconduct ranging from sexual assault,
2:10
Speaker 1: rape allegations, unwanted contact, sending explicit images, and one allegend
2:16
Speaker 1: allegation claims the accuser was too intoxicated to consent. He
2:21
Speaker 1: has denied all those allegations, calling them false and politically motivated.
2:26
Speaker 1: What's even more shocking is now I think it's fifty
2:29
Speaker 1: of his former staffers have come out against him, saying
2:33
Speaker 1: he needs to resign and basically defending one another saying
2:37
Speaker 1: he's a terrible guy. There's two parts of the story
2:40
Speaker 1: center One how the hell the Democratic Party protect this
2:44
Speaker 1: guy for this long? And two why are all the
2:47
Speaker 1: Democrats now turning against him? It's because they're afraid they're
2:50
Speaker 1: going to lose the governor's race in California.
2:53
Speaker 2: Well, just a week ago, this guy was the front
2:57
Speaker 2: runner among the Democrats to be the next governor of CALIFORNI.
3:01
Speaker 2: I was actually in California this weekend. I spoke at
3:04
Speaker 2: the California Republican Convention. Uh So I was there when
3:08
Speaker 2: this was breaking, and and and you could see, look
3:11
Speaker 2: it was clear when when when this story broke, everyone
3:14
Speaker 2: knew swal Whale's gubernatorial campaign was over the incident it broke. Uh.
3:19
Speaker 2: The the breadth and volume of this this is not
3:22
Speaker 2: just one allegation, it's multiple allegations. It's allegations of a
3:26
Speaker 2: pattern of misconduct, a pattern of repeated sexual harassment of
3:31
Speaker 2: multiple employees. One one staffer who was interviewed by CNN
3:36
Speaker 2: allege that twice she got very very drunk with him
3:41
Speaker 2: and and that he had sex with her not only
3:45
Speaker 2: without her consent, but over her vigorous resistance and objection.
3:51
Speaker 2: If that is true, that is rape. That is criminal conduct.
3:55
Speaker 2: That is criminal conduct for which anyone who commits it
3:58
Speaker 2: should should be prosecuted and go to jail. There are
4:02
Speaker 2: a number of points that are obvious. Number one, this
4:07
Speaker 2: was so widespread to see fifty Swallwell staffers come out
4:10
Speaker 2: against him strongly suggest everybody knew. Now, now, you asked
4:16
Speaker 2: me right before we recorded this pod, did.
4:19
Speaker 3: I know this?
4:19
Speaker 2: Look To be honest, I don't hang out with Democrat
4:22
Speaker 2: house members. I'm not particularly privy to the gossip among
4:26
Speaker 2: the Democrats.
4:27
Speaker 1: Are true that you alienate yourself from Democratic radical house members,
4:31
Speaker 1: I just from glad we cleared that up.
4:33
Speaker 2: Those are not my peeps. So I have no idea
4:37
Speaker 2: what the gossip was about this guy. But given how
4:41
Speaker 2: widespread this is, that the allegations, I think it is
4:44
Speaker 2: impossible that it was not common knowledge that there were
4:48
Speaker 2: not a lot of Democrats who knew this guy was
4:51
Speaker 2: doing this, That this was a pattern of conduct, and
4:54
Speaker 2: that suggests that they all covered it up. They all
4:56
Speaker 2: looked the other way when he was an attack dog
5:00
Speaker 2: attacking Republicans, attacking President Trump, attacking Brett Kavanaugh. They were
5:05
Speaker 2: perfectly happy to have him be the attack dog. And
5:08
Speaker 2: you're right. What has changed is the Democrats are at
5:12
Speaker 2: a panic because you've got multiple Democrats running for governor
5:15
Speaker 2: in California, and you have two Republicans running for governor
5:17
Speaker 2: in California, and California has this weird jungle primary where
5:22
Speaker 2: there's not a Democrat primary and a Republican primary. Everyone
5:26
Speaker 2: runs on the same ballot and the top two vote
5:29
Speaker 2: getters make it to the general election. And so there
5:32
Speaker 2: was a possibility, not a likelihood, but a possibility that
5:37
Speaker 2: the top two vote getters could be the two Republicans.
5:41
Speaker 2: And I will say for Democrats, their heads would explode
5:44
Speaker 2: if they went to the general election and it were
5:46
Speaker 2: one hundred percent certainty that the next governor of California
5:50
Speaker 2: was going to be a Republican. But there were multiple
5:52
Speaker 2: polls that had come out that showed the two Republicans
5:54
Speaker 2: as one and two. And part of the reason is
5:57
Speaker 2: that you had multiple Democrats litting the vote, and you
6:01
Speaker 2: had Eric Swalwell and Katie Porter, both a former House
6:06
Speaker 2: member and current House member, slugging it out. You've also
6:09
Speaker 2: got Tom Steyer, the billionaire who's spending millions and millions
6:14
Speaker 2: of dollars trying to buy the nomination. And so you
6:18
Speaker 2: had Democrats splitting their votes. That was helping the Republicans.
6:22
Speaker 2: And suddenly I think Democrats saw a partisan value to
6:25
Speaker 2: getting rid of Swallwell, and they took him out ruthlessly. Now, Ben,
6:31
Speaker 2: I want to point to you the tell you can
6:35
Speaker 2: tell any Democrat if they're just being a partisan hack
6:41
Speaker 2: by the following tell. Are they calling for him to
6:45
Speaker 2: suspend his gubernatorial campaign?
6:49
Speaker 1: Yep?
6:49
Speaker 2: Or are they calling for him to resign from Congress.
6:52
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's just a goodnatorial campaign, that's the tell.
6:56
Speaker 2: They don't want him to resign. No, no, no, don't resign
6:59
Speaker 2: because look, Republicans barely have a two vote majority. They
7:02
Speaker 2: want Swallowell there. They don't want to jeopardize their majority. Also,
7:06
Speaker 2: they're perfectly happy to have a serial sexual harasser, even
7:10
Speaker 2: a rapist, as long as they get partisan advantage. Now
7:15
Speaker 2: the momentum is shifting. It would not surprise me if
7:18
Speaker 2: Swallwell is out of Congress by the end of the week,
7:20
Speaker 2: because this is getting a lot of them.
7:22
Speaker 1: You talk about the second tell. The other tell is
7:25
Speaker 1: those that are calling for to resign are saying, well,
7:28
Speaker 1: he'should resign and a Republican should also resign that has
7:31
Speaker 1: allegations against him in the Republican side, so they get
7:34
Speaker 1: rid of one of the Republicans. And that's the only
7:36
Speaker 1: reason why they're saying it now is well, I'll call
7:39
Speaker 1: for both of them to resign.
7:41
Speaker 2: Look, and by the way, I could see that potentially happening.
7:45
Speaker 2: The Republican the facts around him are really pretty ugly.
7:49
Speaker 2: He's not running for reelection because they are so ugly
7:52
Speaker 2: and disturbing and and and so it would not shock
7:56
Speaker 2: shock me to see both of them resign. Uh, And
7:59
Speaker 2: that's an outcome I could see the House getting to.
8:01
Speaker 2: But it's been fascinating that virtually every Democrat who's come
8:05
Speaker 2: out with this big, bold statement, they've said suspend the campaign,
8:09
Speaker 2: but they haven't said resigned from Congress. Now.
8:12
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's going to be interesting to see how this ends.
8:15
Speaker 1: But I think you are not far off. I think
8:18
Speaker 1: they want to finish him off and be done with him.
8:20
Speaker 1: And they knew all this and the only reason why
8:22
Speaker 1: they defended him indefinitely. They pushed him to be the
8:26
Speaker 1: guy in California and then they turned on him when
8:29
Speaker 1: they realized that a Republican could win. That is the
8:32
Speaker 1: only reason why we're hearing about any of this. And
8:34
Speaker 1: also the media. You just want to talk about hypocrisy
8:37
Speaker 1: center the way that the media, the liberal media, I mean,
8:40
Speaker 1: this was on the morning shows, the Meet the Press,
8:44
Speaker 1: the Face the Nations, that whatever the hell the other
8:47
Speaker 1: one's called like they were. CNN was wall to wall
8:49
Speaker 1: on this. They were covering it like it was a
8:52
Speaker 1: Republican who had done something, but it was a Democrat,
8:56
Speaker 1: one of their own, and they were like, yeah, we
8:57
Speaker 1: got to get rid of him, because if we don't
8:58
Speaker 1: get rid of him, what happen happens next, Well, then
9:00
Speaker 1: the Republican can win. So you know, who cares about
9:03
Speaker 1: the victims here? This is all about the politics, as
9:06
Speaker 1: you described in a moment ago, it is.
9:09
Speaker 2: And I'll point out there is a second Democrat House member,
9:13
Speaker 2: Shelia Chirfleus McCormick of Florida, who should also be expelled
9:19
Speaker 2: from Congress. She has the Ethics Committee, which is bipartisan,
9:25
Speaker 2: declared her guilty on twenty five out of twenty seven
9:29
Speaker 2: ethics charges from stealing up to five million dollars of
9:36
Speaker 2: FEMA money. So she is likely going to jail for
9:40
Speaker 2: stealing millions of taxpayer dollars. And yet the Democrats are
9:44
Speaker 2: amazingly silent. You've got an alleged serial sexual harasser and
9:52
Speaker 2: potentially even serial rapist, and an embezzler and thief and
9:58
Speaker 2: their city they're going, oh, we're great having both of
10:00
Speaker 2: them there, because you know, partisan power matters more than anything.
10:04
Speaker 2: And by the way, Kim, the press on the coverage
10:07
Speaker 2: of of uh Triphilius McCormick, almost all the press coverage
10:13
Speaker 2: there's actually very little coverage, but what little there is,
10:16
Speaker 2: they almost all leave out that she's a Democrat, that
10:19
Speaker 2: they just that fact never mind, just just just nothing
10:23
Speaker 2: to see here.
10:24
Speaker 1: Now, if you want to hear the rest of this conversation,
10:26
Speaker 1: you can go back and listen to the full podcast
10:29
Speaker 1: from earlier this week. Now onto story number two. By
10:33
Speaker 1: the way, why would they not agree the ten years?
10:35
Speaker 1: And my cynical view is always I'm going to go
10:38
Speaker 1: there first? Is it because they'd want it to be
10:40
Speaker 1: an election your issue within the next ten years. So
10:43
Speaker 1: therefore they're saying, hey, let's fight on this in a
10:45
Speaker 1: couple of years.
10:45
Speaker 2: Again, No, it's not that, it's it's do.
10:48
Speaker 1: You like how cynical politics has made me certain? I
10:50
Speaker 1: just want to be clear. Yeah, Like immediately, I'm like,
10:53
Speaker 1: I could see something like I don't I don't want to.
10:55
Speaker 1: I like this issue. I want I wanted to come
10:57
Speaker 1: up every couple of years, I can fight over it.
10:59
Speaker 3: Yeah.
11:00
Speaker 2: Look that there's a natural instinct of essentially playing small ball,
11:04
Speaker 2: and this is the outcome of negotiations between John Thune,
11:09
Speaker 2: Lindsey Graham, and the White House. And I think the
11:11
Speaker 2: White House is playing small ball too, and so I
11:14
Speaker 2: am urging the White House. Let's go ten years, let's
11:16
Speaker 2: up the budget. I've made this case to the White House.
11:19
Speaker 2: They're not there yet, and so they're focused on the
11:22
Speaker 2: challenge right in front of us rather than the challenge tomorrow.
11:25
Speaker 2: But here's the big case that I made, and I
11:27
Speaker 2: leaned in really aggressively. I said, listen, we should do
11:33
Speaker 2: a reconciliation bill. We should fund ICE, do it for
11:35
Speaker 2: ten years, we should fund CVP, do it for ten years,
11:37
Speaker 2: we should up the budgets, but we shouldn't limit it
11:41
Speaker 2: to just those two. We should do a much broader
11:45
Speaker 2: reconciliation bill. In the case I made to my colleagues,
11:48
Speaker 2: I said, this is the last meaningful chance we will
11:51
Speaker 2: have to pass Republican priorities, and there's a very real
11:58
Speaker 2: chance right now it's substantially more likely than not that
12:01
Speaker 2: we will lose at least the House in November. We
12:03
Speaker 2: may lose the Senate to If that's right, then we
12:07
Speaker 2: have just the remainder of twenty twenty six to pass
12:11
Speaker 2: conservative victories, because starting next year, the House will be
12:15
Speaker 2: nothing but all impeachment and all investigations all the time,
12:17
Speaker 2: and so we will not be able to pass conservative priorities.
12:20
Speaker 2: So my case to my colleagues was, we ought to
12:23
Speaker 2: take this up and use reconciliation, just like we did
12:26
Speaker 2: last year on the fourth of July where we passed
12:28
Speaker 2: the working Families tax gut and had a massive number
12:31
Speaker 2: of conservative victories. We ought to do it again, and
12:33
Speaker 2: I suggested that there are a lot of things we
12:34
Speaker 2: can do.
12:35
Speaker 4: So.
12:35
Speaker 2: For example, I have a bill called Keep America Flying
12:39
Speaker 2: that says the Democrats will never again be able to
12:42
Speaker 2: shut down civilian air traffic, so they won't be able
12:47
Speaker 2: to defund air traffic controllers, they won't be able to
12:50
Speaker 2: defund the TSA, they won't be able to defund the
12:53
Speaker 2: federal workers that are critical to keep planes in the air.
12:57
Speaker 2: By the way, September thirtieth budget funding is going to
13:00
Speaker 2: buyer again. Right now, the Democrats are going to force
13:02
Speaker 2: another shutdown. One hundred percent. I will wager in some
13:06
Speaker 2: money right before the elections they will force a shutdown.
13:10
Speaker 2: I think we are idiots to do nothing to prevent them.
13:13
Speaker 2: But the problem is a lot of folks in Congress
13:15
Speaker 2: just look an inch in front of their nose, and
13:18
Speaker 2: they can't look ten inches in front of their nose.
13:21
Speaker 2: So if we're headed to a shutdown in September, we'd
13:24
Speaker 2: be morons not to do something to forestall it. So
13:26
Speaker 2: one of the things we can do is make sure
13:29
Speaker 2: that the four hour lines at airports, the people missing
13:32
Speaker 2: their flights for spring break, that doesn't happen again. We
13:35
Speaker 2: could pass funding that says we're going to keep planes flying.
13:38
Speaker 2: Democrats no longer get to destroy your vacation or destroy
13:43
Speaker 2: your work trip just because they're mad. That I think
13:46
Speaker 2: makes a lot of sense. What I've verged is we
13:48
Speaker 2: had to do things that make sense for the economy. So,
13:51
Speaker 2: for example, an idea that I have been pushing hard
13:55
Speaker 2: is indexing capital gains to inflation. So the way it works,
14:00
Speaker 2: let's say ten years ago you bought a stock for
14:04
Speaker 2: one hundred dollars and in the course of ten years,
14:07
Speaker 2: inflation has driven the cost of that stock to two
14:10
Speaker 2: hundred dollars. Now, if that's all inflation, you don't have
14:14
Speaker 2: any meaningful gain. But if you sell that stock at
14:17
Speaker 2: two hundred dollars, you pay capital gains tax on the
14:20
Speaker 2: difference between one hundred dollars and two hundred dollars, and
14:22
Speaker 2: that's a phantom gain. And so what I believe is
14:26
Speaker 2: you ought to index capital gains to inflation, which means
14:30
Speaker 2: whatever the inflation is base, you raise the basis, you
14:33
Speaker 2: raise the cost of whatever it is you've invested. That
14:36
Speaker 2: would have a massive positive stimulus effect for the economy.
14:41
Speaker 2: And affordability is a huge issue for the voters. It
14:44
Speaker 2: has an enormous impact on housing. So here's what's interesting.
14:49
Speaker 2: If you have a house. Let's say you bought a
14:51
Speaker 2: house and the house is appreciated massively in value. The
14:55
Speaker 2: same principle is true if you sell it. If the
14:57
Speaker 2: appreciation is due to inflation, you pay tax on that. Yeah,
15:01
Speaker 2: and so what happens is a lot of people don't
15:03
Speaker 2: sell their house when you die. If you pass your
15:08
Speaker 2: house onto your kids, the basis steps up, which means
15:12
Speaker 2: your kids take it not at the cost you paid,
15:14
Speaker 2: but whatever the cost is when they inherit it, so
15:17
Speaker 2: that capital gains tax disappears when you die. What it
15:22
Speaker 2: results in, particularly in high tax states, is people holding
15:25
Speaker 2: onto houses a really long time in not selling them.
15:29
Speaker 2: Here's an amazing question, man, California, which has among the
15:32
Speaker 2: highest taxes in the country. Yes, what percent of hopes
15:37
Speaker 2: do you think are passed on at death and other
15:40
Speaker 2: words are held on to so long because the capitol
15:44
Speaker 2: gains tax would be so high.
15:46
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna I'm going to totally guess. I would
15:49
Speaker 1: say at least forty percent. Now I may be wrong,
15:51
Speaker 1: but I know people that they get they that's how
15:54
Speaker 1: they got their parents' house for the same reason you
15:56
Speaker 1: just described it.
15:57
Speaker 2: So you are wrong, that's a little too aggressive. It's
15:59
Speaker 2: about twenty five percent. But twenty five percent.
16:02
Speaker 1: Saying, by the way, because like in Texas, what is
16:04
Speaker 1: it three percent? Four percent?
16:06
Speaker 2: It's much lower. I don't know the Texas number, but
16:09
Speaker 2: it's much lower. And the consequence, Let's say you have
16:12
Speaker 2: a family that has a bunch of kids. They buy
16:14
Speaker 2: a big house and they raise their kids in it,
16:16
Speaker 2: and then their kids graduate go off into the world,
16:19
Speaker 2: and you've just got an older, retired family. Now, many,
16:23
Speaker 2: like an older required couple, doesn't need a big house
16:26
Speaker 2: with a bunch of bedrooms. In a normal world, they
16:29
Speaker 2: would sell that house. They'd put it on the market
16:31
Speaker 2: and they'd buy like they'd buy a smaller little town
16:34
Speaker 2: home or condo. They'd buy something that is more appropriate
16:36
Speaker 2: to their stage in life. But especially in California and
16:40
Speaker 2: other high tax states, they don't do that because their
16:42
Speaker 2: tax bill would be huge. So the effect of this
16:46
Speaker 2: would be the lower the cost of housing for people
16:49
Speaker 2: that are buying. What it means is a young married
16:51
Speaker 2: couple that wants to buy that first house, if there
16:53
Speaker 2: were more houses on the market, it would drive the
16:55
Speaker 2: prices down and they could afford it more. So that's
16:58
Speaker 2: an example of something we can do. I also suggested
17:01
Speaker 2: we could plus up the school choice provisions. We could
17:04
Speaker 2: plus up the Trump account provisions. There are lots of things.
17:09
Speaker 2: Ron Johnson is advocated for the Shutdown Fairness Act, which
17:13
Speaker 2: says that number one, when there's a shutdown, all essential
17:17
Speaker 2: workers will be paid. Number Two, there's another bill that says,
17:19
Speaker 2: we won't have shutdowns. In the case that you don't
17:22
Speaker 2: have funding, you will continue at the prior levels, or
17:25
Speaker 2: maybe you'll ratchet down slightly. My point. Look what I
17:28
Speaker 2: stood up to my colleagues and I said, listen, I
17:32
Speaker 2: am not today advocating for any one particular policy. And
17:37
Speaker 2: I told them the story. So back in twenty eighteen,
17:41
Speaker 2: we had a Republican House, a Republican Senate, we had
17:44
Speaker 2: a Republican President, Donald Trump. And in August of twenty eighteen,
17:48
Speaker 2: I gave a presentation to the Senate Republicans and it
17:50
Speaker 2: was a PowerPoint. It was about fifty pages long, and
17:53
Speaker 2: I called it Carpai DM Seize the Day. And I
17:57
Speaker 2: went through in the last hundred years what it hapened.
18:00
Speaker 2: Happened every time the Democrats had had the House, the Senate,
18:04
Speaker 2: and the White House, and they pass fundamental transformations of
18:08
Speaker 2: this country. They passed the New Deal, they passed the
18:11
Speaker 2: Great Society, they passed Obamacare and Dodd Frank like, when
18:14
Speaker 2: they have control, they push the pedal to the metal
18:17
Speaker 2: and they floor their socialist left wing plans. Republicans, we
18:21
Speaker 2: are pidly. We don't do nearly as much. We did
18:24
Speaker 2: the working Family's tax cut. That was a big, big victory,
18:28
Speaker 2: but we haven't done a whole lot since then. And
18:31
Speaker 2: the case I made in twenty eighteen is I said
18:33
Speaker 2: we ought to take up another reconciliation. It was the
18:36
Speaker 2: vehicle for the biggest legislative victories we have. And I
18:40
Speaker 2: had a chart that I put together of like fifty
18:42
Speaker 2: bills that different Republican senators had introduced, and I said, listen,
18:46
Speaker 2: I'm not being crazy. I'm not saying we should pass
18:48
Speaker 2: all fifty of these. I'm saying, let's pick five. My
18:52
Speaker 2: case was not we should do something specific. My case
18:56
Speaker 2: was simply we should do something. And I turned to
18:59
Speaker 2: my colleagues, I said that what I said it in
19:01
Speaker 2: twenty eighteen. I talked in particular the class of twenty fourteen.
19:06
Speaker 2: There was a big class. Nine new senators Republicans were
19:08
Speaker 2: elected in twenty fourteen, and I said, listen, you guys,
19:13
Speaker 2: if we don't take this opportunity, we had one hundred
19:17
Speaker 2: and eighty three days left in the Congress. This may
19:20
Speaker 2: be the last opportunity you ever get to pass meaning,
19:24
Speaker 2: meaningful legislation. If we lose the House, you're done. No
19:27
Speaker 2: more legislation, forget about it. If that's the case, don't
19:31
Speaker 2: we have an urgency to do something? And as I
19:37
Speaker 2: look back at my entire tenure in the Senate, the
19:39
Speaker 2: most indefensible legislative decision was Mitch McConnell's decision in twenty
19:43
Speaker 2: eighteen not to take up another reconciliation. And I fear
19:48
Speaker 2: that we're repeating the mistake. And by the way, so
19:51
Speaker 2: look for the last couple of months, I have been
19:53
Speaker 2: searching around for how do we do another reconciliation. I've
19:56
Speaker 2: been making this case for a while, but I've said,
19:59
Speaker 2: what we need is a tent pole. What do I
20:02
Speaker 2: mean by a tentpole? I mean an idea that is
20:05
Speaker 2: big enough, that is bold enough, that is important enough
20:08
Speaker 2: that it will unify fifty Republicans in the Senate into it,
20:11
Speaker 2: or eighteen Republicans in the House. Because we have really
20:13
Speaker 2: narrow majority. So you've got to have something big enough
20:16
Speaker 2: that everyone gets behind, and then you could have other
20:18
Speaker 2: provisions carry along if you have a tentpole. In my view,
20:25
Speaker 2: ICE and CBP are the tentpole. There is not a Republican.
20:29
Speaker 2: I don't care if you're the most rock rip conservative
20:32
Speaker 2: or completely squishy mod No Republican wants to vote against
20:36
Speaker 2: funding ICE and CBP. That is a tent pole that
20:40
Speaker 2: can carry the rest of it. And so that's the
20:42
Speaker 2: case I'm making to my colleagues right now. The White
20:45
Speaker 2: House is not on board, and my intention is I'm
20:47
Speaker 2: going to make this case to President Trump directly. I
20:49
Speaker 2: have not done so yet. Today was the beginning of it,
20:53
Speaker 2: making it to my colleagues in the Senate. But I
20:55
Speaker 2: think this is a decision. Do we swing for the
20:59
Speaker 2: fence and get victories, economic victories that we can campaign
21:03
Speaker 2: on and win elections in November, or do we play
21:06
Speaker 2: small ball? And by the way, one of the things
21:08
Speaker 2: that leadership is saying is no, no, we'll do another
21:10
Speaker 2: reconciliation after this. Well, you know what, the next reconciliation
21:14
Speaker 2: will fail because without a tent poll, without something like
21:18
Speaker 2: iceon CBP, you ain't getting fifty and you ain't getting
21:21
Speaker 2: to eighteen because the Republicans will scatter on all sorts
21:24
Speaker 2: of different grounds. So you've got to have something big
21:27
Speaker 2: enough to bring them together and then we can win
21:29
Speaker 2: real victories. That's the case I'm trying to make to
21:32
Speaker 2: my colleagues.
21:34
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's going to be really interesting how this plays out.
21:37
Speaker 1: And you're right, I think Americans are like, what are
21:39
Speaker 1: you doing for me right now? I wish all the
21:41
Speaker 1: Republicans would understand that and be bold like you described it.
21:45
Speaker 1: We'll see if that happens. Otherwise some of your colleagues
21:48
Speaker 1: may not be your colleagues after the election this coming November.
21:51
Speaker 2: And Ben, by the way, one of the things that
21:53
Speaker 2: I'm also urging my colleagues to include is election integrity.
21:56
Speaker 2: To include as much of the Save America Act as
21:59
Speaker 2: we can now. Now it is limited because of reconciliation.
22:03
Speaker 2: There are rules under statute as to what you can
22:05
Speaker 2: include in reconciliation. It has to be budgetary and not policy,
22:10
Speaker 2: and so how you get you can't get the full
22:13
Speaker 2: Save America Act in reconciliation, but you can get election
22:17
Speaker 2: integrity provisions. You can, for example, condition federal grants, for example,
22:22
Speaker 2: the Help America Vote Act grants, which are grants that
22:24
Speaker 2: go to help fund elections you can condition those on
22:27
Speaker 2: election integrity, you can condition those, you can take those
22:30
Speaker 2: away from sanctuary cities. So I'm arguing we ought to
22:33
Speaker 2: be using like, let's take this opportunity to pass legislation
22:38
Speaker 2: that Republicans agree with. Let's win victories. Let's not give
22:42
Speaker 2: up the chance to win victories as before.
22:45
Speaker 1: If you want to hear the rest of this conversation
22:47
Speaker 1: on this topic, you can go back and dow the
22:50
Speaker 1: podcast from earlier this week to hear the entire thing.
22:53
Speaker 1: I want to get back to the big story number
22:56
Speaker 1: three of the week you may have missed. I want
22:58
Speaker 1: to move on to something else that I think it's
23:00
Speaker 1: a really interesting issue as well, and it's happening in
23:02
Speaker 1: New York City. We'll go back to the tax issue
23:05
Speaker 1: a little bit. Been Donnie there. Man, what a guy.
23:08
Speaker 1: He is, just all all hardcore all the time, touting
23:12
Speaker 1: a new five hundred million a year tax on luxury
23:16
Speaker 1: second homes and that's just one of his new ideas
23:19
Speaker 1: to steal from the rich and give to the poor.
23:21
Speaker 2: Yeah, play the video because you really got to listen
23:23
Speaker 2: to this guy.
23:25
Speaker 3: When I ran for mayor, I said I was going
23:27
Speaker 3: to tax the rich. Well, today we're taxing the rich.
23:32
Speaker 4: I'm thrilled to announce we've secured a pea tear tax,
23:35
Speaker 4: the first in New York's history. This is an annual
23:37
Speaker 4: fee on luxury property is worth more than five million
23:40
Speaker 4: dollars whose owners do not live full time in the city,
23:43
Speaker 4: like for this penthouse, which hetch On CEO Ken Griffin
23:46
Speaker 4: Wott for two hundred and thirty eight million dollars. This
23:48
Speaker 4: pew to tear tax is specifically designed for the richest
23:51
Speaker 4: of the rich, those who store their wealth in New
23:53
Speaker 4: York City real estate, but who don't actually live. But
23:55
Speaker 4: even so they're able to reap the huge financial rewards
23:58
Speaker 4: of owning property and dare I say, the greatest city
24:01
Speaker 4: in the worlds And most of the time these units
24:03
Speaker 4: are sitting empty since again they don't actually live here.
24:06
Speaker 3: This is a fundamentally unfair system that hurts working New Yorkers.
24:10
Speaker 3: Now it's coming to an end.
24:12
Speaker 4: This tax will raise at least five hundred million dollars
24:14
Speaker 4: directly for the city, and it'll help fun things like
24:17
Speaker 4: free childcare, cleaner streets, say, for neighborhoods. As mayor, I
24:21
Speaker 4: believe everyone has a role to play in contributing to
24:23
Speaker 4: our city and some.
24:25
Speaker 3: A little bit more than others. Happy tax day in
24:27
Speaker 3: New York.
24:29
Speaker 1: If you're trying to run every person out of New
24:32
Speaker 1: York City that has any amount of money, this is
24:35
Speaker 1: a plan to do it. But I don't think he
24:37
Speaker 1: minds doing that because he's also obsessed with like free
24:40
Speaker 1: rent and rent control and having rents come down and
24:43
Speaker 1: saying I'm for the poor guy, not the rich guy.
24:46
Speaker 2: So if you haven't actually watched that video, you should
24:49
Speaker 2: watch it. Mandani is so gleeful. He is smarmy, he
24:55
Speaker 2: is snarky. He this is vengeful and vindica and and
25:00
Speaker 2: understand this is what the left is that they they
25:05
Speaker 2: hate people who are successful. Look, there's a hypocrisy. We
25:08
Speaker 2: talked about Tom Steyers, a billionaire. You know there's a
25:11
Speaker 2: hypocrisy because they're also funded by the rich. But at
25:14
Speaker 2: the same time, Ken Griffin, who he attacks by name,
25:18
Speaker 2: happens to be a Republican. That's not an accident that
25:21
Speaker 2: he's attacking him by me.
25:22
Speaker 1: Yeah, that was on purpose.
25:24
Speaker 2: And I got to say, by the way, number one,
25:26
Speaker 2: the vindictiveness of him to go after that. Uh, they're
25:30
Speaker 2: a whole lot of people that saw that and picked
25:33
Speaker 2: up the phone and called a realtor and said, get
25:35
Speaker 2: me the hell out of here. I'm headed to Texas.
25:38
Speaker 2: I'm headed to Florida, and and I got to say,
25:42
Speaker 2: let's just take Ken Griffin. Look, I hope Ken Griffin
25:45
Speaker 2: number one sells the damn place. Yeah, but number two.
25:49
Speaker 2: I just pulled out my phone and I googled Ken
25:52
Speaker 2: Griffin is the CEO of Citadel, a big, big financial firm.
25:56
Speaker 2: I just googled how many people do Citadel employ in
25:59
Speaker 2: New York's city? And the aioverview that came up said,
26:04
Speaker 2: as of late twenty twenty five, Citadel employees approximately thirteen
26:09
Speaker 2: hundred to fifteen hundred people in New York City. The
26:12
Speaker 2: headquarters is in Miami.
26:14
Speaker 1: They moved from Chicago down to Miam air for this
26:16
Speaker 1: exact reason. By the way, I have friends that moved
26:18
Speaker 1: to Miami because when COVID happened and then the taxing stuff,
26:22
Speaker 1: it was a one to two points and they were like,
26:23
Speaker 1: let's get the hell out of here because they're sick
26:25
Speaker 1: and tired of paying these taxes. There was executives said
26:27
Speaker 1: I want to work for you. I don't want to
26:29
Speaker 1: work for your new York City anymore.
26:31
Speaker 2: Look, I hope, I hope Ken Griffin decides to close
26:34
Speaker 2: Citadel's New York office and move all fifteen hundred employees
26:38
Speaker 2: out of New York City, because apparently Mondami thinks people
26:41
Speaker 2: that run companies and employ fifteen hundred people are not
26:44
Speaker 2: doing anything beneficial for the city. Instead, they're villains that
26:49
Speaker 2: he wants to gleefully attack. And I I would, I
26:54
Speaker 2: think it would be a beautiful response. And by the way,
26:58
Speaker 2: look Democrats did this to Elon Mona. You know, eland
27:01
Speaker 2: Is to have seven homes in California. He employed thousands
27:05
Speaker 2: and thousands of Californians, and Democrats hated him so much.
27:10
Speaker 2: Look during COVID, when we had the COVID lockdowns, I
27:14
Speaker 2: called Elon on the phone. He was still Californian at
27:16
Speaker 2: the time, and I said, Elon, come to Texas. California,
27:23
Speaker 2: they're a bunch of communists. They hate you. You're not
27:28
Speaker 2: a communist. And there was actually a state senator in
27:30
Speaker 2: California who tweeted, if I remember right, she tweeted, get
27:35
Speaker 2: the f out to Elone. And you know what he did.
27:38
Speaker 2: He came to Texas. He moved to Texas, and he
27:40
Speaker 2: moved Tesla to Texas, he moved SpaceX to Texas. He's
27:44
Speaker 2: moved his companies to Texas. He's moved the jobs to Texas.
27:47
Speaker 2: And by the way, Texas is booming. Elon is employing
27:50
Speaker 2: a lot of Texans with really high paying jobs. You
27:54
Speaker 2: know this is Mandami is trying to his zellotree. You
28:00
Speaker 2: watch this video, and if you can get out of
28:02
Speaker 2: New York City, you will. But here's Mondanamie telling you
28:05
Speaker 2: that he just doesn't think anyone will lead. Give a
28:07
Speaker 2: listen to Mondanni explaining his views.
28:11
Speaker 4: And so, for all of the discussion of the imagined
28:14
Speaker 4: exodus that would take place were we to tax the
28:17
Speaker 4: wealthiest New Yorkers by the appropriate amount, I say imagined
28:21
Speaker 4: because before I was a mayor, I was a state legislator,
28:24
Speaker 4: and I was part of an effort to increase taxes
28:26
Speaker 4: on millionaires at that time. We were told the same
28:28
Speaker 4: thing then. And what we find now is that we
28:30
Speaker 4: have more millionaires today than we did at that time,
28:33
Speaker 4: even after having.
28:33
Speaker 3: Passed that tax.
28:35
Speaker 4: And so for all of that conversation about this imagined exodus,
28:38
Speaker 4: we have to reckon with the very real exodus that
28:42
Speaker 4: we are seeing in the city, an exodus of working
28:45
Speaker 4: class people, an exodus of those who cannot afford to
28:49
Speaker 4: live here. And for many who work here who now
28:52
Speaker 4: find their residence in Jersey City, or in Connecticut, or
28:55
Speaker 4: in Pennsylvania, anywhere else where their dollar can go a
28:57
Speaker 4: little bit further. And just in a snapshot from two
29:04
Speaker 4: thousand to twenty twenty, the city lost two hundred thousand
29:08
Speaker 4: of its black residents. That is the cost of inaction.
29:12
Speaker 4: And so that also speaks to the urgency of this
29:14
Speaker 4: conversation and this advocacy. And it is a representation of
29:18
Speaker 4: the fact that while this is a global issue, it
29:20
Speaker 4: is also very much a local issue here in New
29:23
Speaker 4: York City.
29:24
Speaker 1: I love the globalism aspect of this, right, It's like, well,
29:26
Speaker 1: I mean, it's a global issue too, like let's spread
29:29
Speaker 1: this globally, but it's also a New York issue. When
29:32
Speaker 1: they say crazy things like this, believe them.
29:36
Speaker 2: This is what and understand when he says it's a
29:38
Speaker 2: global issue, he means he wants to take money from
29:40
Speaker 2: all Americans and give it to where you are, people
29:43
Speaker 2: in other countries. He wants to redistribute the wealth within America.
29:48
Speaker 2: Then he wants to redistribute America's wealth to everybody else,
29:51
Speaker 2: because every other country on planet Earth is poorer than
29:53
Speaker 2: the United States, and most are are much poor. In fact,
29:59
Speaker 2: the there was a recent poll in the United Kingdom
30:02
Speaker 2: where they asked British people where they thought the United
30:06
Speaker 2: Kingdom ranked versus US States in income per person and
30:12
Speaker 2: what do you think? Britt said, what was it?
30:15
Speaker 1: What is it?
30:16
Speaker 2: So they answered that they thought they came in seventh,
30:19
Speaker 2: that the UK income in the UK was wealthier than
30:23
Speaker 2: forty three states. Do you know where they actually fall?
30:27
Speaker 2: Where are they dead last? Really? The United Kingdom has
30:32
Speaker 2: lower income for person than every single state in America.
30:36
Speaker 2: Number fifty, I'm sorry, is is Mississippi? That's Mississippi is fifty.
30:43
Speaker 1: I'm glad you pointed that out though, But it's still
30:45
Speaker 1: ahead of the UK. So we've got that.
30:48
Speaker 3: It is.
30:49
Speaker 2: And by the way, when British people find out the truth,
30:53
Speaker 2: twenty seven percent or shocked, twenty two percent er concerned,
30:56
Speaker 2: fifteen percenter disappointed or embarrassed, and only four teen percenter
31:00
Speaker 2: motivated for change. Look, that's it, Mondani, he means it,
31:07
Speaker 2: and I will say it's interesting. Contrasting his comments with
31:12
Speaker 2: Kathy Hokeel the Democrat governor who we talked about at
31:14
Speaker 2: a prior podcast. We played her pleading with wealthy New
31:18
Speaker 2: Yorkers who have fled to come back, and she says,
31:21
Speaker 2: come back, why because our social programs are super expensive
31:26
Speaker 2: and we need you to come back so we can
31:27
Speaker 2: tax the hell out of you to pay for the
31:29
Speaker 2: spending that I want to do. And it literally is.
31:32
Speaker 2: I don't think there's one human being who would be
31:35
Speaker 2: persuaded by that argument. But I do want to say
31:38
Speaker 2: one thing to wealthy New Yorkers who don't like the
31:41
Speaker 2: new taxes that are coming. If you vote Democrat, stay
31:46
Speaker 2: and take your damn medicine. If you vote to put
31:48
Speaker 2: these clowns in office, you are not welcome in Texas.
31:51
Speaker 2: Don't come to our state. Don't bring your disease to us.
31:55
Speaker 2: Look Steven Spielberg, he fled California to get away from
32:00
Speaker 2: Gavin Newsom's wealth tax. He moved to New York City. Well,
32:04
Speaker 2: you know what, Spielberg, They there enjoy the new taxes.
32:08
Speaker 2: If you wanted to go from one communist another, that's fine.
32:10
Speaker 2: But don't come to a red state if you're going
32:12
Speaker 2: to vote for this garbage in our.
32:13
Speaker 1: States as always thank you for listening to Verdict with Center,
32:18
Speaker 1: Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with you don't forget to deal
32:20
Speaker 1: with my podcast, and you can listen to my podcast
32:22
Speaker 1: every other day you're not listening to Verdict or each
32:24
Speaker 1: day when you listen to Verdict. Afterwards, I'd love to
32:27
Speaker 1: have you as a listener to again the Ben Ferguson podcasts,
32:30
Speaker 1: and we will see you back here on Monday morning.