KXEL Presents: The Jacobsen Group Podcast - July 20, 2024

If you're enjoying this KXEL podcast, then we invite you to listen to KXEL's great programming in real time too!

You can hear us on the radio, statewide at AM 1540 and in the Cedar Valley at FM 100.5.

We stream live on the web, not only through KXEL.com, but also through our free KXEL mobile app.

And Alexa knows how to find us too.

It's where Iowa comes to talk, News Talk 1540, KXEL.

Good morning, Eastern Iowa.

The Jacobson Group comes to you here on this Saturday morning sponsored by Midwest Renewable Energy, LLC, and Hames Homes, the Homes people.

John Jacobson here in studio with Mike Shane.

Today on KXL, 1540 AM, Clear Channel, 50,000 Watts, and 100.5 FM.

And catch the podcast always, kxl.com, slash Jacobson, J-A-C-O-B-S-E-N.

throughout the Midwest and all of our big 10 states.

Stand by for entertainment.

Three, two, one, go!

This segment on the Jacobson Group on KXEL 1540 the 50,000 watt blowtorch brought to you by Midwest Renewable Energy LLC.

Energy for a strong America.

Jim and Cindy Jandran also big sponsors of Life Runners.

young and old alike walking and running across America, across the globe to preserve life from womb to tomb.

Life funders and Midwest Renewable Energy LLC.

Let's introduce our McLaughlin group cast.

Mike Shane, engineer here.

John Jacobson, your host and our special guest of the chairs today, Chip Reedman, our regular recurring co-host and

Frequent contributors that brother sister tandem of kip and Sheila Murphy welcome welcome issue one A dreadful day last Saturday a week ago today shots rang out

and we almost lost the 45th president, but for a millimeter, but for a millimeter of providential head turning when the president's head was clearly within the sights of whoever the sniper was, wherever that sniper was located, the president has survived and in a Reagan-esque style, an iconic fist shake, urging his supporters not only that he was alive and well, but to continue the fight.

Fight Fight, the Iowa University Fight Song.

Mike Chen, can you pull that up?

They've now adopted the Trump Mantra under the Iowa Fight Song.

Let's take a listen, guys, the Iowa Hawkeyes.

All right, do it again, Mike.

You want to hear the first three words.

He's going to cue it up as Fight Fight Fight.

So even the Iowa Hawkeyes embrace the Trump Mantra, bloodied and unbowed.

How bad is this for the Biden administration?

I'm going to start out and say, if it was not an inside job, if it was not a set up, if it was not a kill zone, I'm not saying it was.

At the very least, it was reckless, criminally negligent actions on the part of the Biden administration, criminal,

negligence, and the environment that this regime has whipped up against Trump over the last four to five years is reminiscent to me of what King Henry II did when he said in England centuries ago, will no one rid me of this meddlesome bishop?

And his supporters took him seriously and attacked and murdered St.

Thomas Beckett

Archbishop of Canterbury while saying mass and then of course Henry II tried to claim total innocence and Henry II was put under severe penance with the alternative of being losing his crown.

Who's to blame for this?

I start with Sheila Murphy.

Well, I think you just highlighted the two major issues here.

Of course, getting the anger against Trump

to wave up those flames as much as possible as a big factor.

But I think there's a more underlying thing to be seen here that incompetence is just raging in this administration because they do not consider competence itself to be an important factor in hiring anyone for anything.

That's clear.

And this is no different.

You set out to get

certain people, political appointments, what are their characteristics?

Do they think the right way?

Do they have the right friends?

We hire people as favors.

We hire people to fill slots in demographic categories.

The last thing they think about is competence.

And when you have a case like this, this is what you

get.

Kit Murphy, you and I have been to many presidential events.

I was with Pope Benedict in New York City back in 2008, attending Mass at Old Yankee Stadium, participating in the parade through downtown Manhattan from St.

Patrick's to Central Park.

There were American military and secret service snipers on every rooftop.

You couldn't get near with any sort of weapon.

Kip Murphy, not only was there no guard on the water tower, there was no guard on the building of the alleged shooter that was flagged as a problematic building from the get-go.

President Trump's normal Secret Service detail was relieved of duty that day, except for one person.

How does that happen?

The perpetrator himself has identified

was on the premises earlier that day, allowed in with a range finder to walk off paces and distances, and to add insult to injury, where he allegedly took the shots, was the roof, how do you get up on the roof by a ladder, evidently, or some mechanism, he was on the roof of the very building that was the staging area for our protective forces.

for the president kip murphy how does that happen how can that catastrophic sequence of errors be random and be uh... just uh... uh... by chance i just uh... how do you explain it kip

uh... well right now uh... you can't play it because one we don't have all the facts yet and um... i wasn't uh... uh...

people i listen to you on this there's a re there's a really good reporting going on and i'm also listening to the people like dan banjino

yes he's been excellent yes

uh... brit fifteen years of protective detail there's uh... to survey reports that are need to be released and for the for the site that were done to uh... those reports point out where

they needed to have people and who was going to be at those people.

Those should be out there right now.

So

we need those and I think we'll get more information coming up this Monday because they're starting to already have a congressional hearing.

Do you think the Republicans will actually

Uh, have the guts to go forward through with these hearings, Kip.

And then I'll go to Chip here momentarily.

Oh yeah.

They're going to, I mean, if you saw the senators and going after the, uh, head of the secret service and you, you were listening to figure Johnson, I've heard him on several interviews.

They've also got not just Republicans wanting these hearings, but also Democrats.

Good take Kip that that's really good.

You, you've got buying up their Camelot.

Yep.

and they need to be protected.

Yes,

absolutely.

Then you could have problems with others.

of people.

Chip Reidman, that's a great point, but yet my orcus is stonewalling.

He will not let cheater testify.

It sounds like there's drone footage, and they don't want to release that, probably for obvious reasons, is probably going to embarrass them.

Chip Reidman, what does it take to get fired in the Biden White House?

We've seen the Afghanistan debacle.

We've seen numerous debacles.

Why is cheater still heading up the SS, the Secret Service?

Yeah, there's there's there's no premise that allows anyone to be fired in this administration I don't care how bad you do even missing the shooting of a president I love a good conspiracy theory and there's a lot involved in this and I think you know Kip Sheila John you've all brought up some good points.

I want to kind of point out maybe a couple Corrections or clarifications on a couple things Monday, we're not going to find anything out from my understanding correct me if I'm wrong

This is going to be a closed interview that they're going to have with a cheetah or whatever her name is.

It's

not going to be an open session that everyone's going to know about it, which leads me to what you brought about the drone is I don't understand why the secret service has not had a press conference.

Any sort at this time even just standing up there and saying we can't tell you

do you think that do you think the fact that the perp was on the roof for their building that they were staging out of is slightly embarrassing and Probably hard to come up with an explanation for that.

It probably will take several days to concoct something

Well, that's goes back to what kip said is we need I need more information As as to what happened

Are you concerned that two separate volleys were fired of roughly four shots each?

and that there was no return fire or anything for quite a substantial amount of time.

Okay, well that covers the second clarification.

So I've got a relative in the Secret Service and he told me a long time ago when the Secret Service sets up a protection detail, especially this counter sniper deal, their logic, their strategy is they always look from the inside out.

And he even commented about other countries and how they defend or protect their leaders, that they're the reverts.

They'll have snipers on the outside looking in.

They said, that's not the way the US Secret Service does it.

They're on the inside.

That's inside looking out.

And that's why there was the two teams of snipers on the buildings immediately behind Trump.

And they might have a tower like they did in Omaha.

They might have a tower very near where the stage is, which is where my relative was when he was in Omaha here a few years ago.

so they so but the bell tower excuse me the water tower you talked about they also mentioned about church people that's not where they would put agents now you could put a police officer up there make sure no one's up there make sure it's you know vacated but that's not the way the secret service operate

it's funny is the way they operate with brock obama they put them on water towers or water tower like platforms for obama and it sure uh... the the whole debacle cost the life of uh...

curry comparatory uh... because frankly uh... the guy never should have been on the roof that was i did as a dangerous problematic site and every little kid who plays an xbox sweeps the roof even ten-year-olds uh... it's inexplicable and frankly unforgivable that this happened

and john i'm not sure where you're getting the groan for it is because what

and that could be from like um a private source but from what I'm hearing is that the Secret Service had no air access at the event.

Yeah well then they should have if they didn't that that's the criminal negligence between them and the other agency bureaus there and frankly again uh why why you wait until volleys are shot before taking out uh a sniper if you have if you've ID'd them I just think the whole thing is

So, it is such a cavalcade of catastrophic incompetencies that frankly, you know, in doing show prep, I've talked to people, you guys know I walk five miles a day in different malls and retail areas, and there aren't even, even the people who don't like Trump, even Democrats and independents,

They think that this was fishy.

They're not buying the Biden line.

And if that's going on, you know you've lost the country.

If you look at the social media, the ridicule and scorn being heaped upon the alphabet agencies, the protective agencies, shows a total loss of confidence now.

in our protective bureaus, and that is incredibly dangerous to the country.

Issue two!

Grade the Republican Convention Thursday night.

I've got to say that I thought Franklin Graham's a rock star.

He got the president, President Trump, not to cuss.

Kid Rock and Dana White were absolutely fantastic.

Donald Trump's

son Eric did a magnificent job.

The night before perhaps was even better.

Kai Trump, that young lady, is a superstar.

She humanized Donald Trump like no one has been able to.

And frankly, I think Peter Navarro gave the greatest speech of the 21st century in American history.

If you guys haven't watched the Peter Navarro speech, that's your reason to vote.

for President Trump.

But grade the President's performance last night, I'm going to start.

A lot of birdies on the front end, especially the tribute to Cory and his reflective somber, really a new Trump with a very stirring demeanor of sobriety and seriousness and yet believing, as I do, that there was providential protection

and that he's on a mission.

The speech went long is what some detractors are saying.

I'm saying whenever you can get on NBC as they were dissing him all night, whenever you get on NBC on three time zones for three different time zones over three 30 minute periods, grab the time and repeat.

We need not be so much told as it be reminded, gave him a shot.

in that second, third half hour, he was not negative.

He took the high road.

He talked about what he was going to do.

I grade the speech an A minus.

I think Trump leaves the convention right now leading in 325 electoral votes.

I go to you, Sheila Murphy, what say you?

Yes, I think it was, I might even say it was an A plus because I'm considering all the factors here.

And for Trump,

He pulled it together beautifully, but what I could see under the surface is that this is not a new Trump.

This Trump has always been there, but it was obvious that this man feels so terribly than an innocent human being who lost his life simply because he came there to support Trump.

He just, this has affected him more deeply than I think anyone knows.

And this is what we saw at work.

And I have never seen a political candidate take such a direct and conversational approach to the

people.

professional hacks beforehand.

I thought it was ingenious to have Dana White and Hulk Hogan.

I didn't mention Hulk.

Hulk was up there.

That was great.

And Lee Greenwood and you know, it was just kid rock.

I thought it was great.

I think it, talk about a base turnout.

What do you say, Kip Murphy?

I'd give it a solid A on his speech because it did at times run a little long, but he laid out a very aggressive

strategy for his four years.

He wants to accomplish a lot for the American people.

And like he said, he's not going to settle for just getting by.

We're shooting for excellence in everything.

And

that's where I think makes Trump different from

Biden.

I agree,

Kip.

I agree, Kip.

Trump wants excellence for everyone, wants to raise everybody up.

Whereas Biden wants to bring everyone down to one level, Trump wants to raise everyone up to a high level.

Well, he talked about the two catastrophic economic and internal security issues.

He's going to issue executive orders on day one to close the border, which we need to do and also to drill baby drill, which we need to do to pull ourselves out of this recession.

Also, he highlighted the specter of nuclear war that we're facing with all these conflagrations, uncontrolled across the globe.

He was very poignant when he talked about how Iran was starving for cash, and Biden fed him the cash, and then Iran is in there through their surrogates attacking Israel.

Chip Readman, how do you grade the convention and the Trump speech?

The convention?

I would

grade it all in A.

were a plus for the people they had on the parents of the Afghan soldiers that were killed.

Trump's speech was definitely A, maybe an A minus.

Like you guys just said, I think the link probably didn't help any and he gets a little repetitive when he talks, but otherwise he hit the main points.

I thought the biggest parts of the speech that I remember sitting here was to me, the moment of silence.

I thought that's about as dramatic as you can get.

Kissing the helmet.

Kissing the helmet of the slain man that was protective shielding his family

as President Trump correctly pointed out.

That had to be hard for CNN and MSNBC to be broad.

NBC was hard on Thursday night.

What a bunch of trolls.

Yeah, I agree.

Trump was so strong out of the gate, I would say he birdied six of the first seven holes and basically parted all the way in for 66, which would win Augusta on the last day.

Issue three, Mike Shane.

Two up the music.

Where does the Biden campaign go from here?

There are reports that he's leaving the race by Sunday.

There are reports that he's very angry and resentful about it.

There are reports that Obama is putting the screws to him, along with Schumer, along with Pelosi.

Rumors are that Biden may not, if he leaves, give Kamala Harris the endorsement.

would that mean an open convention according to election law to get the money and uh... all the logistics uh... done with any degree of simplicity it would have to go to a comma but what's going to happen right now polling shows and the cbs poll

Came out last night on Thursday night rather Nationwide Trump up five is the largest lead he's ever had in polling ever As a presidential candidate, but if you look the swing states right now Trump leads in North Carolina, Georgia, Nevada Arizona Virginia Pennsylvania Michigan, Wisconsin all states that went

for Biden.

For years ago, right now, Trump is looking at close to 325 votes.

Is this race over?

Are we in a McGovern-Eagleton situation, a Mondale Ferrero situation?

Where does Biden go from here?

Sheila Murphy.

I

hesitate to say it's ever over.

We cannot afford to have that kind of thinking for one millisecond because

The media still has power.

They still have a lot of relatively ignorant people out there who will still go cast votes under their thumbs.

I agree.

And so we have to be mindful.

I'm set you up because I'm worried about cheating and another violent attempt maybe against Republican candidates as well as an October surprise.

So you're on the right lead here.

Sheila, continue your train of thought.

And the other thing is that we also cannot forget that they do not operate on the same plane that we do, the Democrats.

They are capable of anything to achieve their end.

And so the dirty tricks could be like nothing we've ever seen.

So nobody can afford to be cocky.

We can come out of this convention buoyed up and optimistic and positive, but we cannot count on a darn.

thing.

That's a magnificent take by the great Sheila Murphy.

That is an A plus take 10 out of 10.

Kip Murphy, what say you?

Yeah, I'm always running in any campaign I run in.

You never ever think that you've got it in the bag.

Because once you start thing that way, that's when you go down to the feet.

You run as if every vote counts.

You run as if you're

and the election is going to be tomorrow, and that you're still five points behind, and that you still have to go out there and earn the votes of all the people.

You can't be complacent, because once you're complacent, then your voters don't turn out, and you get skunked in the end.

That's why I won my landslides and never lost, Kip, because I had you and Sheila

Telling me that and that's why I won and that's why it worked because I listened to you We always ran like we were five down Kip Murphy kudos to you.

Yeah, just think back Two years ago everyone was talking about in the midterm the big red way what happened to the

red?

Yeah, exactly

look back to

you Yep brilliantly said by Kip Murphy chip.

We give you the final word here

Those are all great points.

What I want to throw out there is looking at from the other side from the Biden side

What are they offering him?

This is Joe Biden.

He's not going to go away without some kind of a deal.

And so I'm wondering is, how much money are they offering him?

How much security, wealth, et cetera, for him and his family?

Because it's all about money with him.

And the second one, is there any offer or any contingency made as far as getting both of them, the whole family, getting a pardon?

Obviously, Joe can do a pardon for his son and stuff, whether it looks good or bad, regardless, doesn't matter.

but also Joe may need to pardon down the road also.

And so I wonder if anything's going to be had in the back room, smokefield room for taking care of good old Joe from Scranton.

Salient points from a Bravo panel here.

Bonus issue four.

Jacobson says the Vance pick was brilliant.

Some Iowa politicals didn't see it.

Let me tell you why it's brilliant.

is brilliant because 40% of the Rust Belt electorate, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Trump needs to win one, 40% of that electorate are either Catholic or former Catholics.

Rust Belt, blue collar, social conservative, if there was a remnant Reagan Democrat, they would be it.

J.D.

Vance, a Catholic intellectual with a blue collar hillbilly background.

And at the convention, Wall Street is not as pleased as Main Street is.

J.D.

Vance arguing for the working man.

arguing for why we need to cut inflation and lower interest rates.

JD Vance arguing even for the necessity of unions where appropriate.

JD Vance is going to swing the rust belt for Trump and my outro is to each of you.

You've each got 30 seconds as we're coming up on break.

Grade the Vance pick on a scale of one to ten.

One meaning not so good.

Ten meaning metaphysical certitude, apodictical victory in the rest belt.

Rate Vance and then number two on a scale of one to ten.

One, Biden stays in the race.

Ten, he's out of there.

What do you say, Sheila Murphy?

I say that Biden is eventually out of there.

They have to do it in a way to keep that campaign money.

That's their main thing right now.

Joe's feelings don't matter anymore.

And as far as Vance goes, I think it's a brilliant pick because of his communication style.

Trump sees what's happening and he sees that this direct Reagan-esque approach that Vance has will win the day.

I agree.

Not only that, Sheila, but it puts a nail forever in the coffin of the Romney McCain, Bush, McConnell, Paul Ryan, wing of the Republican Party.

Good riddance.

Kepp Murphy, what say you?

The Vance Pick and will Joe Steyer, will he go?

Vance Pick, I believe is a nine.

I never think anything is a metaphysical certainty.

So I'm not going to 10.

And Biden out of there, I predicted before that if he got out, it'd be starting this weekend after the Republican convention.

So I'm saying he's out of there and he's out.

I agree with you.

I agree with you.

Chip Reidman, you got the final word here in our final minute of this segment.

I'll give advance his appointment

or selection and eight.

Nobody's perfect, but I think he's a very good one.

He represents the everyday guy, maybe a little bit more.

I'm not so sure about the Catholic connection.

I think it's there, but I don't think it's

as much as

maybe you think it is.

I think his roots in Ohio, the hillbilly eulogy story, I think ties him to people.

a lot more than than the religious side.

As far as Biden's situation, I'd say it's like a nine and a half that he's going to be gone.

I

there's

just that never say never.

Like Sheila said earlier, there's always that freak chance that they may want to figure out a way to keep him in.

And it is about the money, as I said earlier, and Sheila alluded to that.

They got a lot of campaign money in the Biden-Harris War Chest.

And if they go to someone else that Newsom comes in, that's not his money to use.

Of course, on the other hand, they're known for breaking the law an awful lot and never getting punished for it.

So who knows what will happen there.

Double bonus issue five, one word answer.

Who will be the successor to Biden?

Go.

I say Harris.

Sheila.

Harris.

Kip.

Harris.

Chip Redman.

Harris.

Thank you for joining us on this great segment.

We have such a magnificent panel the greatest political consultants of all time They they helped drive me to victory told me it's never over till it's over Kip Murphy and Sheila Murphy and our good friend and colleague Chip Reidman who also doesn't believe in metaphysical certitudes unless it's Iowa beating Nebraska the day after Thanksgiving annually

Guys, it was great to have you on.

Listen to our podcast.

the Jacobson Group on kxl.com slash Jacobson, the Danish Viking Spelling, J-A-C-O-B-S-E-N.

I'm here with Mike Shane and this segment was sponsored by Jim Jandron and Cindy Jandron.

Founders of Midwest Renewable Energy, LLC in Nebraska, Energy Renewable Fuels for Strong America.

It's lean, it's clean, it's green, and also great supporters of life runners, young and old, running and walking across the globe, and particularly here in the states.

to preserve the sanctity of life from womb to tomb.

KXEL Land, I'm so excited today.

It's a glorious summer day in Iowa.

We're on North America's one and only 1540 AM, caroming through all the big 10 states on the AM signal and going internationally on our podcast, kxl.com slash Jacobson, the Danish Viking S-E-N variety of spelling there.

We have welcome back the crowd on their feet.

We have this great cameo coming back from the legendary Barbara.

Haymes, daughter of my growing up heroes, Kurt and Norma Haymes in this beautiful enterprise.

Haymes homes out of Cedar Rapids, Iowa Haymes, the homes people.

Guys, they are everything great about the American experiment of free market, enterprise, economics undergirded by Christian values of business ethics and virtue.

Safe, affordable, lovely, beautiful homes.

Barbara, welcome back to this show.

We love having Curtis on and Clint periodically, but it's so great that you come back periodically.

If only Johnny Carson had done that a little more often, I'd still be watching late night television.

Well, hello to you too, John Jacobson.

And it's not important to me that you compare me to Johnny Carson.

We'll just leave that for another day.

You know, my mom is still.

God love her.

She is still alive and kicking.

She's soon going to be celebrating her 88th birthday this August 10th.

We're coming out and I want to stop by and see you guys at your beautiful office in your two beautiful communities there.

I love the way you honor the memory of your parents by flying, not just old glory, but our Iowa flag, our liberties we prize, our rights we will maintain, and the POWMIA flag.

Your parents were great patrons.

and you continue that patriotic tradition because it hams homes.

You're doing so much for the community.

You've won the Corridor Award.

You guys have food pantries and Frisbee parks and dog parks and tornado shelters for your people, although your homes hold up better than regular homes did during the derecho.

You have security vetting to make sure that people who come into your communities are good citizens.

Barbara, you guys do everything well and

That wonderful website, HamesHomes.com is a treasure trove of information.

And you've written a great article that's just come out.

How is a Hames home better than an apartment?

I've always wondered that, Barbara.

I always think a home is better than a small apartment.

Home ownership is always a value.

But for people that might be flirting with, well, they don't know where the economy is.

Well, don't know where interest rates are going.

Why?

Are you guys still better than short-term apartment renting?

Oh, I'm so glad you asked that, John.

There are dozens of reasons why a manufactured home is better than an apartment.

Seeing that the Hames community's grand view and summit view and Southwest Cedar Rapids, people own their homes and lease the land.

Exactly.

So when they are paying for their home, they are actually building up equity in their home.

And contrary to popular belief, manufactured homes do not depreciate.

In fact,

In the past five years, they have appreciated more than site built homes.

So that's

that's equity on steroids is what you're telling

us.

Right.

Right.

And then you can go to livability.com and confirm that.

People here enjoy living separately.

They have their own little yard.

There's no one living above them.

No shared walls.

They have their own parking space.

They're not in a big parking lot with other people.

It's a really a community and people get

along.

There's

so many amenities.

Like you said, we have a dog park, we have parks and playgrounds, we have emergency storm shelters, we have community events.

This is one of the best kept secrets in Cedar Rapids.

Barbara it is and I love what you said because Deb and I for a while, no longer but for a while we were in a condo.

community and here's the thing you're right it's your home I couldn't plan a garden it was community property I couldn't paint the walls without permission you know not just the equity buildup but like you said you're not sharing walls with your neighbors like we were you can have your own driveway we didn't have our own driveway it was communal condo driveway work heck you can even have a garage on the lot that you lease I see garages all through your two summit and Grandview neighborhoods Barbara

Yes, most of our home sites are big enough for an optional one or two car garage.

A lot of folks take us up on that option.

They build those and it increases the value of their home.

So when they go to resell it, their home is worth more.

There's just so many advantages over apartment living.

We're so proud of our communities and we want people to come to our website.

HamesHomes.com and see our beautiful inventory of homes for sale.

We don't rent homes.

All of our homes here are owner occupied.

But we do have great financing options available, and we'd love to talk to some new home buyers about that.

That's the key, guys.

When some of these banks are getting a little skittish and flinching on loans, you guys are doubling down and making it affordable for financing.

And I love your whole mojo, the modus operandi of how you do it, because Deb and I now, in our 60s, you know, in our home out

hundreds of miles west of you.

We're all on one floor because of our age.

Because of the water table, we don't have a basement with concrete foundation issues and flooding.

We've got all the living space on one level.

That's exactly the trifecta of what you guys have going on there in your two communities.

It's a great situation for families of all ages.

Everyone from newlyweds starting out to families with kids, multi-generational families, and especially our empty

love the fact that the home is all on one floor and there's no basement to flood.

Guys, I'll tell you, I've been out there, I've been out there in the sweet springtime with all those yards, flowers, shrubs and trees.

I do believe that the birds sing more sweetly in the Hames community and the sun shines even more brightly, Barbara Hames.

Well, we are sure about that too and we hope folks will come and visit us and see that for themselves.

We're at the corner of Wilson Avenue and West Post Road.

Southwest in Cedar Rapids.

So Wilson Avenue, West Post Road, Haynes Home Sales Office is open seven days a week to view our beautiful model homes.

What a shot in the arm of adrenaline on this beautiful Saturday in eastern Iowa.

The lovely and gracious Zarina of Iowa business, Barbara Haynes.

Barbara, delightful to be with you.

We'll talk to you again soon and we'll see you as I head out to celebrate mom's double eight.

Looking forward to it, John.

Have a great day.

You too.

Barbara Hames, ladies and gentlemen, proud show sponsor.

We're so grateful for them and all they do for our community.

Well, guys, there is good news.

We're going to go to Otto University to the Guartney Institute, Dr. Peter Jacobson, PhD, and the Guartney Chair and Professor of Economics at Ottawa, and his fellow academician professors at the Guartney Institute with a great segment.

Yes, John, and the segment is about the Chevron Doctor.

On June 28 of this year, the Supreme Court struck down the chevron doctrine, which states that when the law is ambiguous, judges should defer to federal agencies.

The Gortney team breaks down the reasoning behind the decision and what effects it could have on human choice in the world we live.

So now here's Dr. Peter Jacobson and his guests, Dr. Ross McCullough and Dr. Justin Clark.

All right.

Well, I'm excited to have Dr. Clark kind of open this up for us with this Chevron change.

It sounds like Congress is going to have to go back to work and not let little bureaucracies and agencies do their dirty work for them.

But I don't really know all the details.

Dr. Clark, what went on with this ruling?

So the Chevron doctrine was established in 1984 and the doctrine states that when the law is ambiguous Judges should defer to federal agencies about the rules that those agencies make and The thinking behind this to kind of steal me and Chevron for a minute here is something like well

Congress has to make laws, and you can't make a law for every single action, right?

You have to make laws that apply to a bunch of different cases.

So there's going to be a little vagueness in there.

Now we have a big federal bureaucracy, and that's where the experts live.

And so the experts in the federal bureaucracy, when the laws are ambiguous,

They will be the ones who determine how to actually apply them and indeed make any other rules that need to be made.

And therefore, the judiciary ought to defer to these bureaucrats, to the bureaucracy in this case.

So this actually elevates that bureaucracy above the courts, right?

It says the court should defer to the bureaucracy in cases where the laws are ambiguous.

And in theory, sounds good.

Like go where the knowledge is, right?

These people are the experts.

Yes,

that's the steel man

behind it,

right?

And then the case that was decided in the Supreme Court last week, if you pick up the New York Times or whatever, you will hear a lot of, you know, gnashing of teeth and, you know, rending of garments about Chevron being ended.

And they will say things like the Supreme Court, unilaterally, these unelected officials on the Supreme Court are ripping our

democracy's ability to govern itself, right?

Because what the Supreme Court said is Chevron is overturned.

It's now no longer have to defer to the bureaucracy in these cases.

And the case that was brought to the Supreme Court, I believe, is a family fishery that was being fined by, is it the energy scene?

They were being fined $700 a day for some regulation that they were told that they were in violation of.

And this wasn't a law that was passed by Congress.

It was just a bureaucracy that decided, actually, from this day forward, we are holding that you violate this law, even though we don't have the express ability to find you.

We are going to say that we can find you $700 a day going forward.

And courts had ruled, well, since we have to approve the bureaucracy, we have to agree with this.

And Chevron was overturned in this, in this particular case, saying,

That's that's not the role of federal bureaucracy.

So, I mean, I don't know if you guys remember Schoolhouse Rock or whatever.

But you know, if you think about the cartoon picture of the US government, which we are sold in civics class growing up, it's we have three branches of government, right?

We have the executive branch, which is the presidency.

We have, you know, the legislative branch, which is Congress, and we have the judicial branch, which is the courts.

And the role of the

Legislative branch is to craft laws.

The role of the executive branch is to enforce laws, and the role of the judicial branch is to interpret laws.

And if we keep that in mind, we can see that what Chevron really did was take that interpreting laws.

The main purpose of what the judiciary is supposed to be

and move that over into the executive branch because the executive branch normally fills these federal bureaucrats.

It fills up those agencies.

This is why, you know, we had a big meeting for OU and one of the things that was talked about by our CEO was, well, if we have a new administration coming in, a bunch of things are probably gonna have to change about student visas because a lot of these regulations will change, right?

Because new administrations bring in

entirely new federal bureaucracy and they'll have different rules or whatever.

He's not, or CEO wasn't saying, the new president comes in, Congress is going to pass a bunch of new laws about this.

They're saying no.

Right.

The bureaucracy is gonna

which gives us uncertainty and a global sense of the rule of law and and That we are subject to the whims of who's in office when ideally it wasn't set up to be that way

Yeah, but I think a real key point when you're talking about Chevron is to go back to okay How is this tripartite government supposed to work?

It's supposed to have we're supposed to have these three functions and all the repeal of Chevron did was move the interpretation of laws back

to the judiciary.

It's no longer the case that the people enforcing the laws can also interpret the laws that they are charged with enforcing, or rather that

the buck stops with them with the interpretation.

And Congress has to start making laws if they want something to change.

Yeah, you can't just have the bureaucracy deputize themselves as sheriffs and then enforce their

wins.

Yeah, so that's something I want to point out is that, Justin, I think you're right that what

the Chevron President did was it turned the bureaucracies into like these little judicial branches.

What it also did is it turned them into little legislative branches too,

right?

Because what happens in response to this, so it's both directly in and directly they're making legislation.

Like you pointed out, they make all those new rules, which are basically new legislation by sort of reinterpreting existing rules.

But also it permanently affects how legislators write laws too.

This provides an incentive to legislators who

put a lot of trust in the bureaucracy, which I would say probably would generally be left-wing legislators because the bureaucracy by and large is left-wing.

There's a lot of economic data or a lot of economic research that supports this, but bureaucracies are by and large left-wing and they become more left-wing as you go up the hierarchy.

That's the other detail that's important.

There's a few things that are like 50-50 like agriculture, but even those become skewed left-wing as you go up the hierarchy.

And so

What this did is it gave, especially Democrats who like the bureaucracy, the ability to pass very, very vague laws.

And so it affected the legislative branch as well, because if you pass a very, very vague law, well,

then

there's a lot of room for interpretation with respect to the law.

And so this was an extremely necessary change.

Now, I think we can talk about the impacts on how much of a good effect this is going to have.

I'm a little skeptical, but overall, I'm happy with the spirit of overturning Chevron.

Yeah, so I guess the effects of it It's hard for me to imagine Congress all of a sudden changing and now Empowering themselves differently like that's gonna take a while for that to affect so I kind of I Think we're just gonna stay kind of stagnant maybe and for a while and people can contest I guess be a rock similar to the fishery example

There might be more of that that comes down the pipeline that I was wrongly and now I can go to court and then get this adjudicated in a fair way because the judge can't just say, oh, sorry, that's the way the government works.

The bureaucracy can make these rules.

So maybe that would be the more immediate effect is people who feel that they were wrongly treated will start attishing things.

So

yeah, so I think we can imagine lawmakers.

So I could see someone saying like, well,

How are they going to change?

Because they continue to pass vague rules, the bureaucracies continue to interpret them, and then all that's going to happen is they're challenged.

But it is important to notice that lawmakers do have an incentive to actually make this change now, because they don't want their laws to be violated by judicial order.

They want their laws to be implemented.

So how is this going to work?

Well, unfortunately, the most unrealistic result is that Congressmen and women start being very scrupulous with their writing of bills.

because our elected representatives already don't write their bills.

Everybody knows this.

They have the staff, they need to write their bills.

They don't even read them.

Yeah, I don't think that's right.

They don't even read them.

And so what I see, I see this as like a transfer of rents, a transfer of money.

where politicians are going to have to increase, bureaucrats are going to be less sought after, so bureaucrats are going to lose materially from this decision.

Which is good.

I think the permanent bureaucracy is the biggest threat to official representation in this country.

But I think that a lot of this is not going to be transferred to the people, it's going to be transferred to these legislative aides.

Now I also like this because I think it transfers away from politicians too.

So politicians are going to have to pay their aides more because the the aides are going to have to do more work now, right?

And so whereas, you know, before maybe a lot of your campaign finance, a lot of the donations you received and lobbying money you received could have gone to like your own personal pocketbook, enjoying your like celebrity senator status or whatever.

Now you might have to use some of those resources to pay your aides more, which

Now this doesn't fix the problem that we still sort of have an indirect relationship with our legislation that's passed, but it's more direct.

At least, you know, the aides that a politician brings on are not like a permanent feature, whereas the bureaucracy is a semi-permanent feature.

So that's kind of my thinking about it.

I don't know if that's a good analysis.

It's something like kind of what I thought half-baked, but I don't know if you had any thoughts, Justin, or Russ, about the application.

Well, I might need a little help with this from you guys, but

It makes me think that we'll get back to either laws getting created through precedent set with judgments rather than bureaucracies coming up with some sort of detailed law or empowered to do so.

And that's kind of our court system.

That's where I might need a little help, right?

So it's more of a principles-based approach in Congress that it's kind of vague of some sort.

And then the real world happens and

People in power try to enforce laws.

If they feel they were wrongly done, they take it to court, and then that's kind of the way the law changes through precedent of that action was upheld by the court, that action was denied by the court, and then that's kind of how we live our lives.

So I do think that there will be some movement towards trying to be more specific with laws.

And so I agree with you that a lot of what's going to happen is like there's going to be more judicial oversight, not the right word, but, you know, action with respect to interpreting particular laws.

Judicial branches definitely gain some power.

But I do think there will be a movement like in Congress to try to write these laws in such a way that they are enforced how Congress imagines them to be enforced rather than them just outsourcing that's the bureaucracy and letting them handle it.

So I think there will be

Laws will be written more specifically by legislators.

Oh, and by legislators.

I mean, the race, of course.

Yeah.

I just want to highlight the big, a lot of the outcry that I heard was something like these, you know, these unelected Supreme Court justices are changing the law, right?

Their Supreme Court justices aren't democratically elected.

How dare they do this?

And first of all, that is their

their function and the government has conceived right so yeah that literally is what they're supposed to do right but secondly bureaucrats aren't elected either that's the entire point is that by doing this the justice is drugged the lawmaking um responsibility along with the rights the responsibility for making laws and the right to make those laws is the legislative branch with the elected officials in congress yeah and so it's

I found this response really disingenuous or just completely ignorant.

It didn't take power.

It's not the case that an unelected bureaucrat or that these unelected Supreme Court justices took power away from the people.

No, they put power back in the hands of the elected representatives whose job it is to represent the

people.

So that struck me as

a really bad criticism of this.

Yeah.

All

right.

Well, this looks like a good spot for a break.

When we come back, one area I wanted to hit was just how slow our judicial branch can be and possibly how onerous it could be in terms of funding and finances.

And so is this going to be a good step in the right direction or maybe some changes to be made there?

I'm just thinking about

This not being maybe an ideal way to stabilize things or if there's a way to change things.

So, the bureaucracy is still in place, somebody thinks they've been done wrong, and they start the court process.

And, you know, just anecdotally hearing stories from here and there.

I mean, what is that?

A one to four year process or two year process before?

And then if you don't get the answer you want at maybe the state level or something and then you got to appeal it.

It just seems pretty clunky with you got screwed in 2024.

And now we have a good system because you're going to be the wrong will be corrected in 2028 or something.

I'm just struggling to see.

I think it's moving the right direction.

But is there something that can help speed up?

And the first thing that came to mind was just.

And I almost hate to say this, but additional funding of the judicial branch to be able to handle more cases?

So I don't like that.

I know I almost hated to say it.

So let me give like the alternative.

This is what I would say a hopeful alternative.

This

is how

I think it should go.

Which is you're right that a lot of times the judicial branch is slow, but there are already mechanisms in the judicial branch to deal with that.

And so, you know, thinking of this fishery example, how that would be handled in a post Chevron overturned world is this federal agency says, oh, we're going to start finding you that goes to the courts.

And, you know, this fishery is getting these fines and the court says, well, we don't have time to do this right now.

What the judge could do and what I hope they would do is say, okay, what we're going to do is we're going to freeze the fines now.

We're going to put a stay on collection.

This is not going to be acted upon until we make our decision, right?

And so ideally, that's what this would look like is the parties that have to wait are kind of their expense for waiting is compensated one way or another.

Now, in reality, the judicial branch doesn't like this decision.

What they might do is like just not do that, right?

They might make this like a really painful process for anybody who challenges bureaucracies.

I don't know.

I think it's going to depend on the particular judge in court and things like this.

But that's my, like, I think the judicial branch can deal with issues like this.

I am a little bit wary though, like you, that this is going to just result in like hundreds of cases that if they're going to be properly solved, they need to go to the Supreme Court, which can't happen.

So what's really going to happen is liberal jurisdictions are going to, you know, let the bureaucracies rain and the conservative jurisdictions are going to not.

It's better than our current system where they do rain, I guess.

Right.

Exactly.

That's kind of how I think about it.

I'm not an expert on judicial matters either.

So Justin, do you have thoughts on it?

Yeah.

I mean,

dexterity and speed.

might not necessarily be qualities that you want out of the judicial system because, you know, in the one sense, we go like, well, we see these areas that we need to fix, it would be great to have, you know, the court have be dexterous and quick enough to fix them in exactly the way that I want, right?

But that also means that the court can change things in ways that you don't want very quickly.

And I know that, you know, one of the things that you harp on all the time, Russ, is that we want like stability.

And so especially with something like Chevron, which has been one of the legs of the stool on which a bunch of the federal bureaucracy sits, maybe moving really quickly like that would be more a harm than it's worth.

What the Supreme Court does is say, this leg no longer stands.

We're kicking it back down to you guys.

Now it's going to be messy, but we have to figure out

how to make the federal bureaucracy work or how it's going to work absent Chevron.

And so, which is just to say, I think to agree with both of you that it will be messy and a lot of times people won't get their just desserts.

Desserts will be delayed, but it does appear to be better.

I think it's better than leaving Chevron

in place.

Yeah, for sure.

Yeah, that's what I mean.

But I'm thinking it's a 20 year we start to see the fruits of this maybe.

And, you know, if Chevron was in the early 80s, here we are 40 years later of the mess we've kind of gotten ourselves into.

And so that's not all that.

It's just kind of how I guess we want to have our

frame of

mind, right?

But that's just the way it's going to be.

There's a lot of things that are going to be sticky with it.

Yeah, for sure.

Now, where some fluidity comes in is

maybe at the state levels where federal, so this is a federal law, and so there's bureaucracies at the federal government that have imposed some sort of restrictions, rules.

other things on states that may have otherwise wanted to act differently.

And so then we can have more state-by-state changes that get a little more traction early on, I think in the shorter term, if they're not burdened with something that was done at the federal level.

I wish I could come up with a good example, but I don't.

But in theory, that's what I'm thinking.

Yeah, my take is like there.

I think Russ your right to point out like that there obviously can be some downsides from this.

I think the general criticism that like this might muck some things up in a way that we don't like is true.

I think Justice Response is also true that it might muck things up in a way we do like which is fair.

The reason why ultimately I'm very happy about this regardless of how much of a mess it makes the judicial branch is that

the rule of the permanent bureaucracy in the United States needs to end.

That's the simplest way to put things.

There's way too much power in these unelected bureaucrats.

And it's not just that they're unelected.

Sometimes people say, well, they're not elected, but they're appointed by the presidents, right?

And maybe on paper, and actually...

So I'll start by saying on paper the president has the ability to get rid of these bureaucrats.

Now actually in practice there's a lot of like left-wing politicians and judges who are trying to stymie the president's ability to get rid of bureaucrats because they're afraid that Trump is going to get rid of bureaucrats.

So they're arguing like it would be undemocratic for the president to get rid of these unelected bureaucrats and he's an elected president.

Like tell me how this is undemocratic.

It goes back to something we've said on the podcast before which is

democracy just means things that I like and populism or threats to democracy means things I don't like, right?

And so it's not undemocratic to get rid of permanent bureaucrats, obviously.

Permanent bureaucrats, by their nature, are anti-democratic.

Whether you like democracy or not is a different question, but I wrote an article for a while back.

I think we've even talked about this, that reviewed paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research.

And the authors of that paper found that, A, from 1997 to 2019,

Around 50% of federal bureaucrats were Democrats and that's compared to 32% who are Republicans and so you've got an 18% independent Libertarian or left-wing person who doesn't register and so they make up a large amount and that increased over time the percentage of Democrats increased over time So we've had an increasingly left trending

permanent bureaucracy.

We find that people who are conservatives in the bureaucracy select out of the bureaucracies because, you know, they tend to be environments that they don't enjoy.

So this isn't like a conspiracy.

It's just the bureaucracies are set up in such a way that they oppose.

Naturally goes that direction.

And lastly, the authors found no statistically significant evidence that there was an increase in bureaucrat exit when the presidential party changed.

In other words,

From the transition from Bush to Obama, there was not increase in federal bureaucrat exits from Obama to Trump.

There was not increase in federal bureaucrat agents.

In other words, it does not matter which party the American people wants to be in charge of the federal governments.

The federal government is going to be run by these bureaucracies that are plurality Democrat, if not majority Democrat.

Uncertain departments like very heavy majority.

And this is a problem like it is anti-democratic like if you care about representative democracy at all it should bother you that a large part of

what has been our legislative executive and judicial branch because they took all of those powers with Chevron was one party and you could not dethrone them for whatever reason and all sorts of reasons and so it is to me a good thing that this that the reign of terror has ended at least in part I don't think it has totally ended I think we could way overestimate how good this is but it's good that they don't have as much power as they used to because this was not it's certainly not a constitutional system as the Supreme Court affirmed it's even an undemocratic system pretty

you could pretty easily argue

that.

So you made me think as you're talking that Trump's claim to try to drain the swamp will be easier now without Chevron and maybe he could more dramatically drain

some of the bureaucracy.

Is that right?

I think there could be an increase in turnover when these bureaucrats realize that their job is no longer like this fun thing where they get to decide everything about the world, right?

So it could increase turnover.

Now, I don't think they're gonna be like, apart from something like that, there's not a natural increase in the president's ability to get rid of them.

Honestly, I think the thing that's keeping presidents from getting rid of them is like, most presidents are just these establishment people who like all these bureaucrats anyways.

So Trump was, again, kind of this first president who came in in recent years as like an outsider.

And he didn't get rid of the people, right?

He used those people as experts.

I think Vivek is really trying heavily to sway Trump that if he gets elected he needs to remove a lot of the bureaucrats and suspend some rules that protects their employment.

I like Vivek for, if nothing else, that he has put forward that plan of getting rid of, you know, what is it, 75% of bureaucracy by...

eliminating people with even numbered ending social security numbers.

Because it's illegal to get rid of people based on political bias.

And so he says, okay, it's not going to be biased.

It's going to be, I'm going to look at the last age of their social security number.

If it's even, we get rid of them.

And then I'm going to have the remaining people look

at the

last, look at the first number of the social security, get rid of them if it's odd, or you could do even again if you wanted.

And so we're going to get rid of 75% just by doing that.

And that's a good plan.

I think that's exactly what needs to happen.

I don't think it needs to be personal.

It's just a matter of fact that our bureaucracies are way too big and they do way too much.

It's not constitutional.

Always thanks to Dr. Jeff Stein, the czar of all things at KXEL.

Always a pleasure to be with you on behalf of Mike Sheen and me.

Thanks as always to Barbara Hames, Hames the Homes People, and Jim and Cindy Jandran at Midwest Renewable Energy LLC and Life Runners.

people across the country running for life, protecting the right to life from womb to tomb.

John Jacobson saying catch our podcast on kxl.com slash Jacobson, J-A-C-O-B-S-E-N on 1540, 100.5.

Until next week, be safe, be smart, be good, be strong.

Love Jesus Christ.

Thank him and love him and God bless us everyone.

Enjoy summer in Iowa.

It's great to be a Hawkeye and panther and bulldog and cyclone to meet again.

Bye.

Bye

If you're enjoying this KXEL podcast, then we invite you to listen to KXEL's great programming in real time too.

You can hear us on the radio statewide at AM 1540 and in the Cedar Valley at FM 100.5.

We stream live on the web, not only through KXEL.com, but also through our free KXEL mobile app.

And Alexa knows how to find us too.

It's where Iowa comes to talk.

News Talk 1540, KXEL.