Ep 272: California Propositions 2024 (Props 36, 32, 2)

[00:00:07] California Conservative, a libertarian, a moderate Democrat, believe in common sense, or just the same person.

[00:00:13] This is the political podcast for you. It's the California Underground Podcast.

[00:00:27] What's going on everybody? Thanks for tuning into another episode of the California Underground Podcast.

[00:00:31] I'm your host Phil, along with me as always, as my trusty coast. The best, the fastest researcher in the West.

[00:00:37] How are you, Camille? Welcome back.

[00:00:39] Thank you, Maria. Thank you. Yeah, you said it as always.

[00:00:42] But I wasn't here last week. Sorry. That's not so well.

[00:00:46] Yeah, that's fine. We had a great conversation with, or I should say, I was, there was no other person.

[00:00:53] I had a good conversation with Alex Dr. Alex Pochian who was running for Congress.

[00:00:59] You know, you were watching the show anyway. So yeah, great guests.

[00:01:04] Wish him all of us luck. It's a tough district.

[00:01:07] I think he's got the right idea of how to go about it.

[00:01:10] And it's something...

[00:01:11] I think we've talked about it a lot on the show in terms of like how do California Republicans win in California and start flipping blue districts?

[00:01:20] I think he's probably one of the few candidates out there who I think has an actual understanding of how he has to go about that

[00:01:26] and how he has to talk to people. So it was refreshing.

[00:01:30] It was refreshing to hear him talk about how he understands like I need to talk to people like their Californians, like their real people.

[00:01:37] And that just because I'm a Republican just go out there and you know, talk about Trump and Magga and all that stuff.

[00:01:43] You know, I don't even think Trump came up basically at all during the whole podcast.

[00:01:48] It was a great episode. Like you said, I was watching. I was in the comments.

[00:01:52] I was about that. I wasn't on it. He is super super smart.

[00:01:56] And if you haven't watched it, please check it out because it was really great.

[00:02:00] So then he had very like common sense.

[00:02:02] Very intelligent things to say while researched.

[00:02:06] I very much appreciate that.

[00:02:09] Yeah. Well, it helps when you're practicing physician.

[00:02:12] So you kind of go a little smart to be one of those guys.

[00:02:19] Very smart.

[00:02:20] So that's what a dad says.

[00:02:21] Because it is proposition season and every general election.

[00:02:28] We as Californians, we get bombarded with a number of propositions that proposed to change the constitution.

[00:02:36] Change laws California Constitution, I should say and they all have varying degrees of arguments and titles and words

[00:02:46] and slogans and all that stuff.

[00:02:49] So our goal with these episodes is to kind of break down the propositions,

[00:02:53] we're going three tonight and we'll probably do the rest of them over the series

[00:02:57] up leading up to November, so stay tuned.

[00:03:00] With that.

[00:03:01] Because it's going to be 10, so there may be one episode we got a cram in for,

[00:03:06] but tonight we're doing three.

[00:03:09] And yeah, I found that these are listeners really like these because they like

[00:03:14] the tune in and be like, you know what the heck am I voting on?

[00:03:16] I have no idea.

[00:03:18] Can you just go ahead and explain this to me because I don't know.

[00:03:21] Yes, no.

[00:03:22] I'm hoping to get from you tonight.

[00:03:24] Well, I'm going to try.

[00:03:27] I researched.

[00:03:28] You did a good amount of research.

[00:03:30] I was looking at the show notes.

[00:03:33] Yeah, and on this show we don't necessarily tell you one way or another.

[00:03:38] It's always been the motto of this podcast.

[00:03:42] We give you the information.

[00:03:44] We give you the information to figure out like, do I support this?

[00:03:47] Do I not support this?

[00:03:49] Because there's people who follow the show and our listeners of the show who are on different parts of the political spectrum,

[00:03:54] just enjoy listening to the show.

[00:03:56] So we're not going to sit here and be like, oh, you should definitely vote yes on this or definitely vote no on that.

[00:04:02] Well, we'll give you the information and let you figure it out from there.

[00:04:06] But as always disclaimer that I'd love to tell listeners,

[00:04:10] especially California, like there's so much information to take in.

[00:04:15] Like if you're serious about who, you know, being a part of this process, being an active voter all that stuff.

[00:04:22] Take time like to actually sit down with like the materials they send you.

[00:04:27] Do your research.

[00:04:28] Look at the candidates you're voting on.

[00:04:30] Look at their stances.

[00:04:32] I know a lot of people just kind of go like, you know, I'm Republicans.

[00:04:35] I'm just going to vote R down the ballot.

[00:04:37] You know, I'm just going to support whoever they support and just vote the way they want me to vote.

[00:04:43] You could do that. That's absolutely fine.

[00:04:45] If that's your prerogative and you just want to vote the party's way.

[00:04:50] But I found personally that there'll be stuff that I look at and maybe I don't agree with the party on which way they land on it.

[00:04:57] So yeah, that's always, that's always something I've been saying for a long time is take your time.

[00:05:03] Look at all the materials.

[00:05:06] Read them, you know, Camille and I always have our DMs open on Instagram.

[00:05:10] So I get questions all the time feel free to kind of reach out and be like, hey, I don't really understand this.

[00:05:14] Can you give me a little bit better understanding?

[00:05:17] Camille said she loves answering those types of questions.

[00:05:20] So if we could direct all questions which are just, you know, she loves answering those types of questions and give me feedback.

[00:05:26] So what happens is if I get a question like that, I screenshot it and I send it to you.

[00:05:31] And then I answer and then you just go up in my answer and just send it back to you more team work makes the dream work.

[00:05:39] Okay, so we're going to be doing three propositions tonight like I said we're going to be doing 36 32 and two probably the biggest one we're going to spend the most time on is prop 36.

[00:05:54] But before we get started since it is a presidential election time and one of the candidates running is from California.

[00:06:03] I'm introducing a new segment that I don't know if we'll be doing weekly, but I like to call out the cringy comma moment of the week.

[00:06:12] So are you ready for?

[00:06:13] I'm going to be hurt.

[00:06:14] Is all I'm going to be hurt?

[00:06:15] Yeah, I'm going to be hurt.

[00:06:16] It's not like cringy.

[00:06:18] Oh, with a go ball that it's just cringy.

[00:06:20] For now, maybe we'll extend it after the election.

[00:06:24] It'll just be cringy.

[00:06:24] That's actually a good idea.

[00:06:26] I like that.

[00:06:26] Maybe after the election we'll do cringy moment.

[00:06:29] Well, we talked about this before.

[00:06:33] Which then you actually did a like a real or a live on or something but because even conservatives have very cringy.

[00:06:43] Oh yeah.

[00:06:44] That they say in believe it.

[00:06:47] Yeah, I think we're on to something.

[00:06:50] But this week we're doing cringy comma moment of the week and

[00:06:55] Thank you just fell out of a coconut tree.

[00:06:58] That's our sound bite leading into it.

[00:07:01] So this week if you didn't know,

[00:07:05] Kamala has a favorite snack food.

[00:07:08] Did you know what her favorite snack food is?

[00:07:10] I do know.

[00:07:12] Yes.

[00:07:12] Because of that because of this stop, right?

[00:07:16] So this is Kamala trying to figure out what are the normal people eat at a local gas station convenience store.

[00:07:24] Trying to act as natural as someone who's worth millions of dollars in his vice president and

[00:07:29] United States could.

[00:07:32] Oh, no.

[00:07:42] I can't believe that front is by like me.

[00:07:52] What's it?

[00:07:56] Doreedos.

[00:08:01] There they are.

[00:08:03] Thank you.

[00:08:04] I don't want to.

[00:08:06] Oh, what are you getting?

[00:08:11] I do and these are just a few.

[00:08:13] I'm going to the original not the cheese.

[00:08:17] What's your what are you like?

[00:08:18] What are you going to get?

[00:08:19] Some people have some cash.

[00:08:21] Some normal person thing to get.

[00:08:28] I was the main.

[00:08:36] Well,

[00:08:38] Have them had it today.

[00:08:41] One day at a time.

[00:08:42] One day at a time.

[00:08:42] Thank you.

[00:08:43] Thank you.

[00:08:52] I think this is my favorite moment.

[00:08:55] This guy's face right here.

[00:08:57] He's just like what is going on?

[00:09:00] What is this circus that I'm literally just standing here?

[00:09:03] I just showed up to work.

[00:09:05] So that's the cringy Kamala moment of the week.

[00:09:11] Hope I've already talked about it.

[00:09:14] Oh, I forgot the stinger one more time.

[00:09:15] Cringy Kamala moment of the week.

[00:09:18] You think you just fell out of a coconut tree?

[00:09:21] Have you seen those tick doctor answers?

[00:09:23] I mean, they're dumb but people just all over tick talk.

[00:09:27] Like that.

[00:09:28] Oh, yeah.

[00:09:28] It's like a remix now.

[00:09:30] People are doing it.

[00:09:30] Right.

[00:09:32] Catchy.

[00:09:33] Well, first off, she I've never heard anyone pronounce Doritos that way.

[00:09:38] Do reados.

[00:09:40] I've never heard the emphasis on Del Rito's like that.

[00:09:44] The other guy.

[00:09:45] That was the weirdest thing that he could have said, like, oh, I'm just going to get some peanuts and cashews.

[00:09:51] Like you're in a gas station full of fun treats and you're like, I'm going to get some peanuts and cashews.

[00:09:57] Not like a candy bar, not like chip or stuff anything like that.

[00:10:01] I think just try to make her like she's just an oral person is that what the point of this is is like,

[00:10:06] Look, she's just down to earth and she's just like you and she's telling you those.

[00:10:10] I think that's her that's what they're going for here was the.

[00:10:14] Sorry, she is at sheets and if you don't know what sheets of sheets is a gas station in Pennsylvania, like on the east coast, they don't have them out here.

[00:10:24] And she stopped by with her old campaign and there was a big photo shoot and she looked like so out of place and unnatural as to like what she was.

[00:10:32] Was actually picking up like I saw a lot of memes that were like, is this what pores eat?

[00:10:37] I don't understand is this what's it. Oh, do you know's like to ship a campaign bus?

[00:10:43] I don't imagine she has a campaign bus.

[00:10:44] What do you think of Doritos are her of their Joe.

[00:10:47] Ridos are her go to the it would be like fully stock with Joe Ridos.

[00:10:51] Yeah, if she loves doe Ridos that much like why doesn't she have a bus fully stocked of doe Ridos.

[00:10:58] We also got to hear what her nickname for her husband is is.

[00:11:02] I don't know.

[00:11:04] That's sweet.

[00:11:05] I'm going to tell you a doggy.

[00:11:07] I'm talking with a you.

[00:11:09] They have a weird relationship coast too.

[00:11:11] I don't know how to feel.

[00:11:13] But anyway, that's not the point of the night's episode.

[00:11:15] I just thought it was funny because it's like it's gringy and you know what we live in a crazy world.

[00:11:19] It's weird.

[00:11:21] Let's laugh at it a little bit.

[00:11:22] So onto more serious topics.

[00:11:24] Let's start off with the first topic for tonight which is prop 36.

[00:11:32] If you don't know prop 36 is that's fine because if you're not political nerds like us,

[00:11:36] you don't keep up with what are the different props and what the numbers are.

[00:11:40] So prop 36 is the proposition that has been put on the ballot for November,

[00:11:46] which is effectively going to reform prop 47.

[00:11:50] And if you know anything about prop 47.

[00:11:54] First off that's good.

[00:11:55] But I'm going to give you a little bit of a refresher on what prop 47 was.

[00:11:59] It was past in 2014.

[00:12:02] Personal story.

[00:12:03] I was actually working as a legal intern at the San Diego District Attorney's office when it passed.

[00:12:11] And when it went into effect and it was interesting to see the district attorneys back then,

[00:12:17] predict how horrible this bill was going to be and just like what an absolute mess it was.

[00:12:21] Like everybody said the same thing about prop 47.

[00:12:24] They were like, this is going to be horrible.

[00:12:26] It's going to, you know, we're resentencing, letting it ton of people out.

[00:12:30] Like this is just so bad for California.

[00:12:32] We can't do our jobs.

[00:12:34] And they were right back in 2014.

[00:12:37] So prop 47.

[00:12:41] It was initiated in November 4, 2014.

[00:12:44] It was approved.

[00:12:46] So a yes vote supported classifying certain crimes as misdemeanors instead of felonies unless the defendant had prior convictions for murder, rape, certain sex offenses or certain gun crimes,

[00:12:58] allowing resentencing for those currently serving a prison sentence for any of the offenses that the initiative reduced to misdemeanors,

[00:13:06] and creating these safe neighborhoods and schools fund to receive appropriations based on savings from the initiative.

[00:13:15] Kind of misleading.

[00:13:18] So the question was did prop 47 cause an increase in criminal activities.

[00:13:24] The public policy Institute of California released a report that found a relationship between crop 47 and a rise in the larceny theft,

[00:13:31] especially thefts from motor vehicles, researchers found no relationship between violent crimes in crop 47.

[00:13:37] We estimate that prop 47 led to a rise in the larceny theft rate of about 135 per 100,000 residents,

[00:13:47] and increase of close to 9% compared to the 2014 rate, the report stayed.

[00:13:53] The PIPIC utilizes a synthetic control group to approximate the state's crime rate,

[00:13:57] and the public law, Morgan Hill police chief, president of the California Police Chief Association,

[00:14:02] responsible for the PIPIC's conclusions are consistent with what police chiefs across the state have seen since 2014.

[00:14:12] So, prop 47, it's been the main of our existence sort of for the past 10 years, precisely 10 years,

[00:14:22] and it has sort of, you know, there's been debate back and forth whether or not it has had a huge effect on crime based on what it did.

[00:14:31] I would say definitely had an effect on crime, especially with larceny theft.

[00:14:35] We've been seeing in California the smashing grabs have gotten out of control during COVID they got even worse.

[00:14:43] I would say smashing grabs probably were the final straw or if not the final straw along with COVID for downtown San Francisco,

[00:14:54] like downtown San Francisco is basically dead because of smashing grabs and all this petty theft,

[00:15:00] and then along with COVID would shut everybody down.

[00:15:03] So, this isn't the first time. Prop 36 is not the first time we've tried to reform Prop 47 in 2020.

[00:15:10] There was criminal proposition 20, would have made specific types of theft in fraud crimes including firearm theft, vehicle theft and unlawful use of a credit card,

[00:15:20] chargeable as misdemeanors or phalanese rather than misdemeanors.

[00:15:23] The ballot initiative would have also established two additional types of crimes in state code, serial crime and organized retail crime and charged them as wobblers,

[00:15:32] crimes chargeable as misdemeanors or phalanese.

[00:15:35] Okay, so what did the measure do we kind of are already went over that permitted resentencing for those serving a prison sentence for any offenses that the initiative reduced to misdemeanors under Prop 47

[00:15:47] about 10,000 inmates were eligible for resentencing required a review of criminal history and risk assessment of individuals before resentencing created a safe neighborhoods in schools fund.

[00:15:58] Distributed funds from safe neighborhoods in school as follows 25% of the department of education 10% of the victim compensation and government claims board and 65% to the board of state community correction.

[00:16:12] What crimes were affected shoplifting where the value property stolen does not exceed 950 dollars.

[00:16:17] So that's one that everybody knows everybody knows the 950 that's the big number is 950.

[00:16:22] It just kind of goes down the same thing grandstand.

[00:16:25] Okay, wait, I want to talk about that verse like it because I don't fully understand that.

[00:16:29] Right.

[00:16:29] So if I go and still down here 50 dollars worth or minor 49 whatever worth of clothing from a store.

[00:16:38] And then if I go to the grocery store and still a bunch of meat or is like are these things combined or is this two different.

[00:16:49] They are as I understand it there are two separate offenses.

[00:16:54] Because you did crimes to two separate things.

[00:16:57] I can do this all day long.

[00:17:00] And have like full on outfits with shoes and like be feeding my family for free because I'm just going to go like hit up a retail center and then get that grocery store on my way home hit up another grocery store and like what good.

[00:17:14] So here's where I think people in the noise gets gets it wrong is California didn't legalize theft under 950.

[00:17:26] A lot of people, you know, pundits will say oh, it's basically legal for you to steal under $950 so everyone can just go out and steal stuff.

[00:17:33] The issue is is district attorneys and police have limited resources and they don't want to waste their time and resources on stuff that won't go anywhere.

[00:17:45] So by reclassifying any theft under $950.

[00:17:50] Basically, it's not worth it to police to book them to arrest them for de-aest a chargom because a lot of times in a lot of these cities prior to code.

[00:18:03] And before I got really bad like San Francisco.

[00:18:06] They would just dismiss a lot of these misdemeanors the DA would be like, look we're just not going to pursue this stuff it's not worth it their low level offenses.

[00:18:15] So it didn't legalize it but.

[00:18:18] We have limited resources and remember I got an argument I forget a while back with somebody in about Prop 47 and they said well you know the police should just do their job.

[00:18:27] Okay, the police have a lot on their plate district attorneys have a lot on their plate.

[00:18:33] And if you're going to try and charge someone with theft under $950 and then it goes to the district attorney and then it gets dismissed anyway.

[00:18:44] You've wasted all that time drawing up all that paperwork and at the end of the day they just gets dismissed anyway.

[00:18:50] Are you going to spend as much time if you're a police officer on these crimes are you a district attorney or you're going to spend as much time on these crimes.

[00:18:57] Probably not because it's going to go nowhere so.

[00:19:02] That's sort of the issue that that California is facing is that because it's a misdemeanor and they get dismissed so easily.

[00:19:13] That's why people just really aren't following up on it and no one's really cracking down on it.

[00:19:17] Well, are they discouraging the employees for going after these people to because the employees on it usually get it hurt could possibly.

[00:19:25] Get hurt so it's just like everyone just kind of stands there and I'm not saying that in a negative way like all those people are terrible but the everyone like they're just like what am I still do.

[00:19:35] Right, and I think it's probably an insurance and employee issue like they don't want people getting hurt on the job so they're like look let them take the stuff.

[00:19:46] We don't want to pay for your medical bills and for you getting hurt and workers comp so just let them go it's cheaper to just let them take the product and pay for your workers comp.

[00:19:55] And even security that you know, a lot of security isn't armed security or they don't really have any authority to do anything so they just kind of step aside and like I'm not going to get injured for this stuff when the police in the DAs don't care.

[00:20:12] So one person who pushed Prop 47 not surprising George Gaskon who is currently the Los Angeles district attorney who I just pulled today he's actually behind Nathan Hodgeman for district attorney down in up in Los Angeles he at that time a San Francisco district attorney he was pushing it really hard.

[00:20:35] And they referred to it as the safe neighborhood in schools act so this is where ballot language can get a little confusing and again this is why we tell you to research this stuff.

[00:20:47] Don't just take anyone's word for it, but that was that's not the official name.

[00:20:53] But that was sort of like the unofficial name of like that's how they advertise it was safe neighborhoods and schools which sounds great doesn't it I mean safe neighborhoods and schools like sure that.

[00:21:04] Who would info for a safe neighborhood in schools I'd be like saying save you know little children and puppies like who wouldn't vote to save little children and puppies.

[00:21:14] Other officials not surprising Gavin Newsom at the time was lieutenant governor he supported it.

[00:21:21] This was shocking U.S. Center ran Paul supported it at the time probably because he's more libertarian leaning in thought this was like more low level non violent crimes.

[00:21:31] Right.

[00:21:32] We went over new gingrich former speaker the house was also a supporter of it.

[00:21:40] The city of Pasadena was a supporter of it your usual cast of characters from ACLU to the California Federation of teachers every union under the sun supported it.

[00:21:51] Individuals included jazzy supported it Brad Pitt John legend Cameron Diaz a demi more and Michael more so there you go.

[00:22:08] Because if you ever listen to what celebrities say about politics.

[00:22:13] I worry about how you're voting if you're listening to what what celebrities tell you so that's basically the background of property seven which I think is I think is important to get an idea of like.

[00:22:26] Maybe you're listening to this and having like I have no idea what property seven is with a hacker you talking about.

[00:22:32] So that was property seven and that was passed back in 2014 now onto the bill that is coming up this November.

[00:22:40] Prop 36 is called the drug and theft crime penalties and treatment mandated felonies initiative.

[00:22:46] This will be on your ballot if you're a Californian doesn't matter where it's city or county you're in.

[00:22:52] This is a statewide proposition this will be on your ballot this November so for a lot of people are asking what is property six.

[00:23:00] Prop 36 is making major changes to property seven is not repealing.

[00:23:05] Prop 47 but it is making major changes.

[00:23:09] A yes vote supports making changes to prop 47 including classifying certain drug offenses as treatment mandated felonies.

[00:23:18] And as I understand a treatment mandated felony is basically if it involves drugs you can opt to go to treatment and then successfully complete that treatment and then the felony will be dismissed.

[00:23:31] Or if you don't go to treatment then it's punishable up to three years in prison choices yours increasing penalties for certain drug crimes or increasing sentence links in level of crime requiring courts to warn individuals convicted of distributing illegal drugs of their potential future criminal liability.

[00:23:50] If they distribute deadly drugs like fentanyl heroin cocaine and methane fedemine and increasing sentences for theft based on the value of the property stolen.

[00:24:00] So that's prop 36 in a nutshell any thoughts before I continue to ramble on.

[00:24:10] I'll let you ramble on continue to ramble on got it okay those in support lots of mostly Republicans but the Republican party California supports it this is interesting and we're going to show a video in a second regarding this.

[00:24:27] A lot of Democrats are now all of sudden coming out and supporting prop 36 senator state senator Melissa her to do Dave men Josh Newman Susan Rubio Tom umberg jazmy veins Vince functions Republican he supports it who is now in Congress right you want to special so now he's in Congress Stephanie new in.

[00:24:50] And a whole bunch of other people San Francisco mayor London breed supports it so that's how far down San Francisco's fallen San Diego mayor Toglorious supports it which I just learned today San Jose mayor Matt may hand.

[00:25:05] Who was it that I like a media outlet put out that this is supported by white supremacist.

[00:25:14] Do you see that?

[00:25:15] I did not see that but I it was on Twitter ex today and or last night maybe and it was like.

[00:25:26] It's like this is supported by white supremacist and then somebody else like repulsive a bunch of photos.

[00:25:32] All these like diverse Democrats who are supporting it. I'm sorry I have a fly this is fun.

[00:25:37] We have an extra guest on the podcast.

[00:25:42] So, so this was interesting corporations target Walgreens and Walmart are all big supporters.

[00:25:51] Unions include district attorneys association police chiefs association retailer state sheriff's California business roundtable California grossers association.

[00:26:00] So it's a Chris cross of people who are supporting this which is pretty interesting to see it's creating kind of like dividing lines amongst Democrats some opponents who are Democrats like state who represent me a Bonta.

[00:26:16] Wife of Rob Bonta who's the attorney general who will likely be running for governor soon attorneys assembly speaker robert revas Alex Lee.

[00:26:25] Everyone's favorite politician running from its mom's basement.

[00:26:29] basement-

[00:26:31] Everyone's favorite politician living still living in Santa da Paolo to Cadêtre card.

[00:26:38] Melissa and I'll do some of you in question that I want to say.

[00:26:43] Okay, so top donors for supported the committee,

[00:26:49] the yes on Prop 36,

[00:26:51] include Walmart who donated $2.5 million.

[00:26:54] Target who donated $1.5 million.

[00:26:57] Home Depot donated $1 million.

[00:26:59] Calvary Business Roundtable,

[00:27:01] donated $370,000 and 711 kicked in $300,000.

[00:27:07] So obviously, I mean, it's not surprising

[00:27:10] that those stores do support this

[00:27:13] because they are probably the biggest victims

[00:27:15] of what's been going on under Prop 47.

[00:27:18] I mean, if you live here in San Diego,

[00:27:20] just go to the Mission Valley Target

[00:27:22] and you can't buy the order without like

[00:27:25] ringing a little bell or like pressing a button

[00:27:27] and having someone come and like unlock

[00:27:29] the deodorant, which is absolutely bonkers.

[00:27:33] I feel bad if you can't get this.

[00:27:34] I feel bad for those target employees

[00:27:36] who have to run around all day opening up

[00:27:39] like every single thing so that people can get through

[00:27:42] the order and order their shampoo.

[00:27:45] So that's Prop 36, it's gonna be on your ballot.

[00:27:49] Now as I said, this is kind of an interesting

[00:27:52] Prop 36 has had a rocky road to get where it is.

[00:27:57] Sheriff Bianco was on, he was talking about Prop 36.

[00:28:01] Democrats for a while have been doing everything

[00:28:04] they can to stop Prop 36 from being on the ballot

[00:28:07] or at least watering it down

[00:28:09] or stopping people from voting for it.

[00:28:11] The latest poll I saw was like 56% of people

[00:28:14] were in favor of Prop 36.

[00:28:18] So, you know, conservatively I think it's probably going

[00:28:21] to pass just probably a good amount

[00:28:22] undecided people.

[00:28:25] But as we get closer, they'll start ramping up

[00:28:27] all the advertising.

[00:28:30] And yeah, for some reason, well, I mean,

[00:28:34] I have a theory and I'll save it for the end.

[00:28:38] Why Democrats like Gavin Newsom

[00:28:40] have been opposing Prop 36 this entire time

[00:28:46] is been really interesting.

[00:28:48] They drafted those 11 bills,

[00:28:50] which we talked about with Sheriff Bianco

[00:28:52] which included what are called poison pill provisions,

[00:28:57] meaning if Prop 36 passed all those bills

[00:29:02] would have not gone into effect.

[00:29:05] Why you might ask?

[00:29:07] Why would people put such a provision in law?

[00:29:11] And I will explain to you, it's politics.

[00:29:14] It's straight up politics.

[00:29:17] It's so they could run campaign ads up into the election

[00:29:22] saying, you know, if you vote for Prop 36,

[00:29:26] it will undo these 11 bills on criminal justice

[00:29:31] and they'll be like dark and ominous in black and white

[00:29:33] and they'll be like, is that what you want

[00:29:36] for California to make California less safe,

[00:29:40] vote no on Prop 36?

[00:29:43] I mean, it's almost a perfect impression

[00:29:45] of how they would have done it.

[00:29:47] They might steal it, actually.

[00:29:48] They might just steal this clip.

[00:29:49] I was wondering if you were working with them honestly,

[00:29:52] how you think?

[00:29:52] Yeah, maybe I am convincing.

[00:29:55] Maybe I've already seen the demos of it.

[00:29:58] But yeah, that would be the politics of it

[00:30:00] why they would want you to vote no on Prop 36.

[00:30:02] It's the basically scare you into voting no

[00:30:04] because they feel like, well, we already have all these bills.

[00:30:07] But if you vote yes, which is political blackmail,

[00:30:11] why don't you just do what's best for Californians?

[00:30:15] Like, if you care so much about this issue

[00:30:18] and you want to write all these bills that address these issues,

[00:30:22] why do you care of Prop 36 passes?

[00:30:25] It's what's best for Californians.

[00:30:27] Don't you want to help get why are you blackmailing

[00:30:30] Californians over crime?

[00:30:33] So that's interesting to see.

[00:30:35] But now that Prop 36 is on the ballot

[00:30:40] and it's going to go forward,

[00:30:42] it's been interesting seeing the split

[00:30:45] of Democrats who were all against it.

[00:30:49] We're all trying to kill it.

[00:30:50] Now there's like a huge rift between Democrats.

[00:30:55] Like, there's the new some camp

[00:30:56] and then there's the other camp.

[00:30:57] We're in support of it.

[00:30:59] And we do have a video

[00:31:03] from KMPH.

[00:31:04] I don't know which local news Fox News that is.

[00:31:08] But it basically talks about how California Democrats

[00:31:11] are fighting over this issue.

[00:31:15] So before we get started, do you have any thoughts?

[00:31:17] I feel like I've been rambling a lot.

[00:31:19] Yeah, that's fine.

[00:31:20] I have to pause.

[00:31:22] I don't think you're just sitting here.

[00:31:24] Why is fighting off that fly?

[00:31:26] Not in my head.

[00:31:32] Three more ranking Democrats in California

[00:31:34] have announced their support today for Prop 36.

[00:31:38] The state and GOP back ballot measure

[00:31:40] increases sentences for certain drug and theft crimes.

[00:31:43] Fox News reporter Richard Rodriguez explains why the

[00:31:46] mayors of San Jose and El Grove and the DA of Sacramento County.

[00:31:50] Now what it passed?

[00:31:53] A coalition of Democratic elected officials

[00:31:55] throw their support behind Prop 36.

[00:31:59] If passed, it stiffens penalties for drug and theft crimes

[00:32:02] and classify certain drug offenses as treatment mandated

[00:32:07] felonies by requiring those who need treatment to get treatment.

[00:32:11] We will save lives.

[00:32:13] We will help bring our homeless neighbors indoors.

[00:32:17] Proposition 36 would make changes to Prop 47.

[00:32:20] Approved by voters 10 years ago.

[00:32:23] It would increase sentences for theft on the value of property stolen.

[00:32:27] A person with two prior theft convictions would face a felony charge the third time.

[00:32:33] We can't afford to see another person die on the streets.

[00:32:36] We cannot afford to see another small business closed down permanently

[00:32:40] because of retail theft.

[00:32:41] We cannot afford to bury another child because of fentanyl poisoning.

[00:32:44] Supporters of Prop 36 have raised close to nine million dollars.

[00:32:49] The top donors are Walmart, Target and Home Depot.

[00:32:53] We don't just seek to punish far from it.

[00:32:58] But we must seek to prevent these thefts in a meaningful way.

[00:33:06] And that starts by creating clear, fair and certain consequences.

[00:33:12] Prop 36 is supported by the California Republican Party,

[00:33:16] the California DAs and stage share of associations.

[00:33:20] Retroedaries, blocks 26 news.

[00:33:25] Okay.

[00:33:26] There's sort of a little bit more background, more Democrats in favor of it.

[00:33:32] What are your thoughts so far?

[00:33:34] I've glad to see that there's people who are in leadership positions in office,

[00:33:43] who are stepping up and like you just said a moment ago,

[00:33:46] I thought, what does California need?

[00:33:49] Let's, you know.

[00:33:52] Instead of basing this on party lines,

[00:33:54] how about what's best for California?

[00:33:56] And I feel like that's what these people are finally doing and seeing is that they're like,

[00:34:00] they're just like a, this actually does make sense.

[00:34:03] We've had problems for several years now and we need to start reforming.

[00:34:07] And so I appreciate that they're willing to say that they're not going to be like,

[00:34:12] this is an anti-Republican thing and they're not going to be like,

[00:34:14] no, the Republicans just want this and they're like, we can't afford to do this anymore.

[00:34:19] It's time for change.

[00:34:20] So I do appreciate seeing that.

[00:34:22] Yeah, I think it's, um,

[00:34:26] well, I want to tentatively or cautiously applaud Democrats who are coming out in support of Prop 36.

[00:34:34] I also think politically they might see the writing on the wall and they might see that crime

[00:34:40] is a huge issue here in California and that that's something that they've been notoriously

[00:34:44] soft on. And I think they know that, I mean, they're not stupid.

[00:34:50] They have advisers, they pollsters and stuff like that and they're probably seeing like,

[00:34:54] and California's are worried about crime. Like it's probably one of the top three crime

[00:34:57] homelessness in affordability.

[00:34:59] And I think they probably say, like, okay, the cool wave of being soft on crime is over.

[00:35:07] And now people want us to go swing back the different direction and get tough on crime.

[00:35:13] So I think that's one reason why they're probably doing this now. I think especially after Prop 36

[00:35:19] made it on the ballot, they were like, okay, let's get behind this. Let's support it now so we can say,

[00:35:24] like, yeah, we supported this. We supported tougher penalties. We want to clean up streets.

[00:35:29] And, um, yeah, but I think in the other camp, I've said this before on the show.

[00:35:37] In the other camp with like governor newsom, why he is just hell bent on like not letting

[00:35:43] Prop 36 pass. I think it's, well, I mean, he did a lot. Like let's let's just get that out there.

[00:35:50] Governor newsom did a lot to try and stop Prop 36. He did back room deals, back channel deals

[00:35:57] with the state legislature with all these poison pill bills that they were trying to pass

[00:36:03] at the last minute. They were trying to enact their own proposition, like a counter to Prop 36,

[00:36:10] which ultimately like they, they pulled because there wasn't enough support.

[00:36:16] And now he went out and signed like 11 new retail theft bills, which are kind of watered down bills.

[00:36:22] And I think it's mostly because people, you know, he supported it. He supported in 2014 as

[00:36:26] a governor and politicians, golden rules, politicians never ever, ever, ever like to admit that they

[00:36:32] were wrong on something. Especially someone that Gavin Newsom. And if he's going to run for governor

[00:36:38] or president, thank you. He's already run for governor and he's one choice.

[00:36:44] Is he does not want to go back on Prop 47? And say, yeah, I was wrong. I should have been tougher

[00:36:51] like I had on intended consequences. I'm not really bad if you're running for president and you're

[00:36:56] like, yeah, I supported this proposition that basically turned our state into a huge crime zone.

[00:37:04] And then 10 years later after I saw the horrible destructive effects of it,

[00:37:09] then all of a sudden I changed my tune and I was like, oh, this is probably a bad idea.

[00:37:12] I probably should have seen this coming. So he's probably, he's probably sticking to his guns on

[00:37:17] this so that it's not like ammunition against him down the road. And at least he can say like,

[00:37:22] oh, I passed, I signed all these bills into law and look, I took all these tough stances on crime.

[00:37:27] And we didn't even have to reform Prop 47. So that's why I think he's doing it.

[00:37:32] That's my theory. What are your thoughts?

[00:37:34] Right. No, I agree with you on that. And remember, he said he was going to come up with his own

[00:37:39] measure or bill or something that would solve all these issues. And he was like, this is unnecessary

[00:37:44] because I'm going to do x y and z. And then the timing was very sus. Sorry to quote the children.

[00:37:52] It was like all the sun. It was clear Biden wasn't going to be able to run again or he was

[00:37:58] not going to win or whatever and and Gavin kind of ran off and dropped his whole like, oh, I'm

[00:38:04] not going to worry about that. And like, it was running off to be with camp Biden. And now,

[00:38:11] obviously he's not going to be on the presidential, you know, he's not his name is not going to be on

[00:38:17] about this this time around. And it's so then he just, it was just weird the timing again.

[00:38:22] Like he was like, I'm going to do this. Then dropped it and ran off the Biden. And now he's,

[00:38:28] I don't even know what he's doing. He's kind of, as far as I know, I think I saw he was not invited

[00:38:35] to speak at the DNC but the lieutenant governor was not a way, whatever her name is. I know he was

[00:38:42] there last night. And it was making for the course. I don't like, of course he would be there.

[00:38:49] But he's also kind of not really been in California much for the last couple years. He's been

[00:38:54] running off to do everything else. But I understand why he would be at the DNC that would make sense.

[00:39:00] But um, but I don't know what he's actually doing for California right now, not doing doing.

[00:39:06] I honestly, there was so much talk and now there's not and I, I'm kind of, I need to go figure this out.

[00:39:13] counted what is going to there's one more video regarding this. And then we have a little bit

[00:39:20] more and then we got to get to the other proposition. So this is regarding San Jose Mayor and

[00:39:25] Governor Newsom split on prop 36. Okay. And grab properties they've become a headache for Bayery

[00:39:35] business is in a hot button political issue. Well, today Governor Newsom signed a package of

[00:39:41] bills and he cracked down on organized retail theft. He's trying to convince voters to reject

[00:39:46] a separate ballot measure that would go even further to punish property crime offenders.

[00:39:52] But a new poll from UC Berkeley and the LA times shows 56% are backing prop 36,

[00:40:00] which would impose stiffer sentences for repeat offenders. Man to Harry looks at the heated

[00:40:05] politics of our crime and punishment. The debate on prop 36 is heating up. The ballot measure

[00:40:15] would allow felony charges and increased sentences for theft and drug crimes. Some mayors across

[00:40:21] the state are in support of it, including San Jose Mayor Matt Mayhand. We see that we have an

[00:40:26] epidemic of unaddressed untreated addiction. The answer is treatment. Mayor Mayhand says prop 36

[00:40:36] would help reduce retail crime by mandating that drug addicted individuals,

[00:40:40] committing crimes get help. We have to have accountability for treatment. We have to give judges

[00:40:46] the tools they need to mandate that people get treatment. Governor Gavin Newsom wasn't San Jose

[00:40:54] on Friday signing 10 bills addressing retail property and auto theft. He disagrees with the mayor

[00:41:00] arguing that Mayhand isn't seeing the full picture. I would ask those that support it,

[00:41:05] particularly mayors. We're the treatments lots, we're the beds. There are 22 counties,

[00:41:11] 22 counties in the state of California. This is not a local initiative. Prop 36. It's a statewide

[00:41:16] initiative. 22 counties don't have one residential treatment facility. Mayhand counter that there

[00:41:23] are thousands of treatment beds across the state and they need to be filled with those who need

[00:41:28] them most, especially those who are making others unsafe by committing crimes because of their

[00:41:33] addiction. Yet Newsom insists prop 36 won't reduce retail crime. They're lying to you.

[00:41:40] That initiative has nothing to do with retail theft. This has everything to do with retail theft.

[00:41:44] That initiative is about going back to the 1980s and the war on drugs.

[00:41:48] But Mayhand says he knows from personal experience that treatment can help, but sometimes it can't be

[00:41:54] left up to the person to choose it. I have a cousin who many years ago and up on the streets right

[00:41:59] here in San Jose because of addiction. Really died on the streets and it was only because of the

[00:42:06] aggressive intervention of family members who eventually forced him into treatment and his life today.

[00:42:11] Mayhand believes if a repeat of vendor has drug abuse issues, there needs to be consequences.

[00:42:17] He fully supports all 10 bills signed by Newsom, but he believes those bills are just a first step.

[00:42:23] He is inviting the governor back so he can show him first hand what things are like in San Jose.

[00:42:28] And how he believes prop 36 would make a difference. Welcome the governor to come back. I would love

[00:42:35] to take a walk with him, throw it downtown along our creek and have those same conversations

[00:42:41] and see what he thinks. Prop 36 aims to overhaul another ballot measure prop 47 passed in 2014

[00:42:49] that reduced punishments for theft crimes and nonviolent drug offenses.

[00:42:53] State GOP lawmakers. All right, so Gavin Newsom standing, standing arm and arm with Scott Weiner

[00:43:07] right there with other members Rob Bonta as well. So as we can see there is this issue with Gavin Newsom

[00:43:17] he doesn't want to admit that he was wrong on Prop 47 back in 2014. And yeah, that's usually what

[00:43:25] happens with politicians is that at the end of the day they never want to admit that they're wrong.

[00:43:30] I thought it was interesting where he said that there are 22 counties without one residential

[00:43:38] one residential treatment bed and to me that that makes me a welcome back.

[00:43:45] I was like, did I exit out of York window as well? Anyway, as I was saying Gavin Newsom,

[00:43:52] Arm and Arm would scout Weiner one of our favorite legislators. I thought it was interesting where

[00:43:57] he said there's 22 counties in California that don't have a residential treatment bed and I'm

[00:44:03] sitting here thinking right, or the governor up until now. So that sounds like a you problem. That

[00:44:11] sounds like you haven't done what you're supposed to under this current amount of like under

[00:44:17] the current loss. So what's your solution? But he's he's digging his heels in. He wants

[00:44:24] the biggest heels in on Prop 36 and poses much as possible. Another thing that I a theory that I think

[00:44:33] also again, I think maybe this has something to do with it. I think he doesn't like the idea

[00:44:41] that there will probably be millions of California to vote and support of this,

[00:44:46] showing like a honest review of his policies. Like I think that doesn't vote well for him as well.

[00:44:53] So sorry, you're going to say something. Well, go back to your list here, Prop 1 was Prop 1. That was

[00:44:58] the homeless bond 6 billion something like that. Remember, you and I talked about the language

[00:45:06] in that Prop. And I get that that's homeless and that's a different issue, but there was a lot of

[00:45:12] taking funds from local government and sitting at Sacramento and that people that were opposed to it

[00:45:19] and like counties and what not that were opposed to this idea we're saying we will have to close

[00:45:25] treatment centers and the treatment centers are not just for homeless people. And so what he's like

[00:45:31] there's not enough treatment centers in 22 counties, but it's like your whole Prop 1 that you

[00:45:36] pushed actually takes away money from local treatment centers. So I just it's like,

[00:45:43] it's like he just does one thing. It doesn't think about how all the 10 things that he does

[00:45:48] actually affect each other and effect the state. It that always baffles me. Right. And I think

[00:45:56] he's doing this from a political standpoint. It doesn't want to admit that he was wrong in 2014.

[00:46:00] That's basically it. He doesn't want this black mark on his record. And he can't stand the

[00:46:06] thought that Californians are going to disagree with him on it. So tying it back to our one of our

[00:46:14] current presidential candidates, if you don't remember, Kamala Harris was the Attorney General

[00:46:20] during this time 2014. So she did not take a position on Prop 47, but she was part of

[00:46:31] crafting the title, which people said was kind of deceptive. That's what Attorney

[00:46:37] generals do with belt measures. So they were kind of aware about that law enforcement authorities

[00:46:42] also blamed Harris for not acknowledging that it would massively reduce DNA collections to solve

[00:46:47] crimes like rape and murder after the law was enacted, the amount of DNA samples collected

[00:46:51] per month dropped from 15,000 to 5,000. Quote if she was aware of the DNA issue, Harris could have

[00:46:58] exchanged some of the verbiage for the following nine words, will curb law enforcement's authority

[00:47:03] to collect DNA samples if she wasn't aware of the DNA issue, she was not doing her job.

[00:47:09] So which we've discussed before there's always yes she kind of always has this well I didn't do that.

[00:47:16] That wasn't me and it's like, but that was your department. That was your job. How did you not know?

[00:47:23] And if you continue to have these people under you then you obviously are not good at hiring the

[00:47:29] right people, you're not going to place the right people under you. So yeah you're running for the biggest

[00:47:34] executive job in the world and if you don't know what's going on then that's that's an issue of

[00:47:45] she's eating Doritos. She's too worried about Doritos.

[00:47:52] All right next proposition that we want to talk about if you all remember it was only a couple months ago

[00:47:59] that we had had a whole episode about minimum wage laws in California and if you think that

[00:48:09] was the end of it if you think that was what they got and everyone was all excited.

[00:48:14] Think again because California Proposition 32 is looking to set the new minimum wage in California

[00:48:20] to $18 per hour. So a yes vote on Prop 32 supports increasing the statement on wage to $18 per hour

[00:48:29] by 2026 so you got two years to get it up there. Well, and six to six right now.

[00:48:37] I think it's 16 right now and then. And then it's supposed to the first that you're going to

[00:48:42] 1650. So what they're doing? Yeah it's going to increase with inflation. Is there

[00:48:49] what they're climbing? What if inflation's way down as they're telling us so?

[00:48:54] Right inflation's way down because it's not as high as it was the previous month.

[00:48:59] Novo opposes this value initiative thereby maintaining the existing law which was designed to increase

[00:49:04] them wage to $15 per hour. Let's see the value initiative would increase the statement on

[00:49:09] wage to $18 an hour over several years like SB 3 the value initiative would increase the

[00:49:14] amount of wage at different speeds depending on whether an employer is 26 or more workers

[00:49:19] or 25 or less workers for employers which 26 or more workers the minimum wage would reach $18

[00:49:25] $18 on January 1st 2025. For employers who are 25 or less workers the minimum wage would reach

[00:49:32] $18 on January 1st 2025. So who supports it? Yes on California Living Wage Act so we're now

[00:49:41] getting into this whole living wage versus minimum wage from 1996 to 2022 there were 28 minimum

[00:49:48] wage increase measures on the ballot voters approved 92.86 percent of them. That's across the

[00:49:56] country that's not necessarily California. Fiscal impact which I thought was really interesting

[00:50:02] so usually when they do a proposition the legislative and analyst office will come out and say like

[00:50:08] here's our fiscal report or what we believe will happen so that way you have an idea is again

[00:50:13] increased taxes, you know, increased spending, deficit, blah, blah. Is that unclear change in annual

[00:50:19] state and local tax revenues likely between a loss of a couple billion dollars in a gain of a

[00:50:25] few hundred million dollars increase in annual state and local government costs likely between

[00:50:30] half a billion dollars and a few billion dollars. So not good on that front lose revenue and

[00:50:39] everything else will be more expensive which would be a shocker. Who do you think the living

[00:50:46] goes up as that whole minimum wage is no longer a living wage even though minimum wage was

[00:50:51] never supposed to be living wage and this is fun little just circle of life. They keep conflighting

[00:50:57] living wage with minimum wage. So who do you think is the biggest supporter of this proposition?

[00:51:06] The unions and specifically who would that be? I'm assuming we're talking about the rate of goods

[00:51:12] all is still. Yep, learning against all's flexor is the biggest supporter of this. Let's see.

[00:51:20] In support, they've raised $10.9 million. Oppositions only $10,000.

[00:51:29] I would just walk into places that pay the double wage and start handing in like...

[00:51:33] You can do a lot with $10 million. That's for sure.

[00:51:38] I originally thought we talked about how much money they raised really things in the market but that

[00:51:42] could think for what you're asking anyway. It could have yeah, I mean you're spending $10 million

[00:51:49] on this. Well, $10 million goes a long way for a lot of people working so maybe I don't know

[00:51:57] create a fund or something that helps people. I'm trying to see who there's a whole bunch of people

[00:52:03] who specifically top donors. Wow, okay. Joseph and Sandberg probably should have looked this up

[00:52:11] for Joseph and Sandberg. He donated $10 million out of the $10.9 million. So whoever Joseph and Sandberg is,

[00:52:21] he really wants people to get $18 minimum wage. Okay. Now there is an article East Bay Times

[00:52:32] regarding this. What's going on? California is a vote on $18 minimum wage. Workers already want

[00:52:39] $25 and more. So $18 is not enough. Is what they're saying? Unions in California have taken a different approach.

[00:52:49] They've won industry-specific wage floors for fast food, healthcare and in some cities.

[00:52:54] Hotels that are well above the statewide minimum, fast food workers who've got a raise to a minimum

[00:52:58] of $20 in April are seeking an inflationary bump for next year. In Los Angeles,

[00:53:04] Hotel and airport workers are demanding a $25 minimum wage and he raised a $30 in time for the

[00:53:10] 2020-28 Olympics. Well that's one way to do it is I can I can only see it now.

[00:53:17] Give us $30 right before the Olympics or we'll all go on strike right before the Olympics because they're

[00:53:25] all part of the union. I can see it now. I can see that headlines now.

[00:53:29] The other one is the also started accepting applications I guess. I don't know if they're officially

[00:53:34] open but they're talking about now you can volunteer with the Olympics and I believe they're going to

[00:53:40] 30,000, maybe 45,000 volunteers who will. Now I get that. Sorry this fly.

[00:53:48] I get that like volunteers and going to go work at the McDonald's down the street from the Olympics.

[00:53:52] I understand that but these people are like demanding this, you know, pay us more while they're

[00:54:00] about to have probably a few hundred thousand volunteers willing to do a lot of work which will

[00:54:07] include like at these hotels and the hospitality is some checking in. People and like, you know,

[00:54:13] kind of get it making sure everything is flowing and so that's that's interesting to me.

[00:54:18] I was just reading about that today and so I was like thinking, oh, these people are demanding

[00:54:22] 30 dollars right before the Olympics but yet they're going to open it for tens of thousands

[00:54:28] of volunteers. So that's kind of interesting to me because it's like, oh we can get someone to

[00:54:34] almost do your job for free at least in the hospitality environment. Yeah, it's they're going to

[00:54:40] make money on all the poor volunteers who just want to be a part of the Olympics and then everybody

[00:54:44] who will blackmail LA into paying them for working at the Olympics. So so I have a push because

[00:54:53] the fast food just went up to $18 an hour, you know, early this year, 20. Right. Okay, so where they

[00:55:00] now going to demand more because now they're going to be lower and there was the argument for

[00:55:07] I forget was something about their working conditions or something like that and therefore

[00:55:13] they deserve more and so if now they're going to be lower than these other industries,

[00:55:19] are we going to see that? Like okay, so now it's going to be $20 an hour to work at a fast food

[00:55:25] place because minimum wage is 25. I know that this is not pushing for 25 but this is what people

[00:55:31] are pushing for. Yeah, this is what the restaurants are already asking. It's just going to be

[00:55:37] so they are admitting implicitly that between April, which is when this law went into effect and now

[00:55:45] which is on to three four four and a half months. That inflation has risen that much that they need

[00:55:54] to get a bump to $25 an hour but I thought I thought I'd incurred inflation. I don't know,

[00:56:01] maybe I'm wrong but I thought Kamala and Biden fixed inflation. They did.

[00:56:06] But they still need inflation. She let California fly and I mean,

[00:56:11] right, you're super just doing a fairer thing for ourselves. Kamala was from Calvarnia,

[00:56:17] but you know, lived in Calvarnia was a politician. She just forgot about California. She

[00:56:21] cheered inflation everywhere. It's kind of like gas prices. Somehow all the oil companies

[00:56:26] only gouge California, not everybody else in the country. We're not how that happens.

[00:56:30] So I've got making jokes that like this passes and then fast food workers are like,

[00:56:37] we want more money and of course they're unionized now, right? So then the unions are going to go

[00:56:42] and fight for that. And then so in like 24 months, come to me 26, we're paying 30 bucks

[00:56:50] for a cheeseburger and fries it in an hour and this is inflation. How do people not understand

[00:57:00] how do our politicians not understand basic economics? It's your infrastructure.

[00:57:06] Probably because none of them have ever picked up an economics book in their life.

[00:57:11] Didn't they have to go to school? I mean, didn't they go to school?

[00:57:15] The policy side major myself, we were never required to take any economics courses. So

[00:57:21] all those polyside majors who ended up in legislative offices, campaign offices,

[00:57:28] never took an economics course. I can tell you firsthand, not the others than what economics is.

[00:57:33] So I think you should be required reading if you're going to go into politics. Well it's

[00:57:37] required at high school and I assumed it was a part of general ed in college. Me who dropped out

[00:57:42] doesn't know these things. Was it part of a member? I don't think there was an economics course

[00:57:49] that was required for us. It wasn't like our general ed education. Is that where that's getting off

[00:57:54] like that? I just... Yeah. From my experience, polyside majors we never took an economics course.

[00:58:01] I think it was offered but a lot of people don't take it. Let's see, the article goes on to say

[00:58:06] the most powerful proponent, the California Labor Federation which represents 2.3 million

[00:58:11] union members isn't yet sure how much effort it's going to put toward passing the measure.

[00:58:16] Well the Federation was not involved in qualifying the measure. It endorsed it in July and

[00:58:20] this would include it on other statewide campaign materials. Quote, I just don't know how much

[00:58:26] opposition there will be quite honestly said Labor Federation president or in against olives.

[00:58:31] Gonzales sees the bout measure as a quote way to move things forward and quote at a time

[00:58:36] lawmakers are unlikely to take up the minimum wage. Quote when we jumped to $15 and did it

[00:58:42] legislatively that was really profound. And quote she said by 18 dollars today,

[00:58:46] sure it makes a difference she said but it's not really a living wage.

[00:58:52] Correct. That's not the point of a minimum wage to be a living wage. So, I mean you know

[00:59:01] but she completes all that stuff with a living wage in a minimum wages. Again this is where

[00:59:07] and get not to get really off on economics but I mean if there are different fast food and we're

[00:59:17] if there are different fast food places where you can choose to go and start working and in and

[00:59:23] out start you I mean in and out you used to start you like $10 an hour when I was in college and that

[00:59:28] was like wow $10 an hour you got paid double digits that's incredible but then there were other

[00:59:34] fast food restaurants that only paid you $7 an hour. And if you had your choice and you could apply

[00:59:41] to one of them and you wanted to work for one of them. Wouldn't it be who the businesses to try

[00:59:47] and attract the best talent by being competitive with their wages? And by you know that's sort

[00:59:54] of the point I guess the argument for a minimum wage is that at least creates a floor that you can't

[01:00:02] go below but at least you can go higher than it and you could be competitive and try and attract

[01:00:09] some of the best talent and I think it worked for in and out. I mean their staff is always super friendly

[01:00:14] they're always helpful they're working their butts off so that seemed to work to me like there

[01:00:19] was a discrepancy between the quality you're getting in and out versus McDonald's. Same thing

[01:00:25] with Chick-fil-A I imagine they pay Chick-fil-A better and they you know their staff is much more helpful

[01:00:30] and nicer but I think the bigger argument here about minimum wage that most people don't even

[01:00:38] think about is that it does chop off the ladder at the bottom where people can enter into the work force

[01:00:46] right like now I think we talked about on this podcast how like your daughter wanted to go work somewhere

[01:00:52] but it's like it's hard to get a fast food job. She stopped trying. She stopped trying because

[01:00:58] like you're 16 calm it's okay like you it's not. I'm good on her that she wanted to get a job

[01:01:03] to make money and but it's just you know it cuts off people who want to enter the work force

[01:01:10] is like their first job or someone who just needs a job just needs a job to like make ends

[01:01:14] me like it chops off that ladder at the bottom and hurts the people that they think that

[01:01:20] they're helping when you do a minimum wage so and it also takes away the ability for people to

[01:01:26] barter for how much they want to be paid. Well right and so what she was told which we talked about

[01:01:31] is like I'm sorry we're not hiring anyone under 18 we're letting people go and so and we're cutting

[01:01:37] back hours. So when you have somebody who maybe doesn't have a lot of qualifications and they're

[01:01:43] they're working at a fast food place to McDonald's whatever but maybe they're working for the hours

[01:01:47] a week and get benefits now their hours are cut and they'd a longer qualify for benefits because

[01:01:52] they're not full time employed. So we've like we've said you know like congratulations on your

[01:02:01] raise sorry about your job loss sorry about like you don't have benefits anymore I'm sorry that

[01:02:08] your your sick child you can't afford their medication anymore. Yeah because that's what your

[01:02:13] hours cause it's too expensive and you may have lied on it every month and said okay there's

[01:02:21] I've pulled an article from a calm but this is probably from someone else I can imagine from

[01:02:26] I was from it's from Moneywise. As we cut where we can California restaurants cut staff hours due

[01:02:32] to the minimum wage hike is the new hourly wage really helping restaurant workers. Lawrence Chang

[01:02:37] and his family owned seven Wendy's location south of Los Angeles but this busy summer season he has

[01:02:42] fewer staff clocking to help him. Chang told you a associate press he's been cutting his staff's

[01:02:48] hours due to the increasing california's been a wage for fast food workers which jumped from 16 to $20 per hour.

[01:02:56] We just kind of cut where we can I schedule one less person then I come in for that time

[01:03:00] night in schedule and I work that hour. See one Carlos Chaconne owner of nine jersey mics

[01:03:09] in Los Angeles who says the labor accounts for about 35% of his total costs. The minimum wage hike

[01:03:14] is not only cut staff but also passed on to his customers I've been in the business for 25 years

[01:03:20] and I've never had to increase the amount pricing that I did in the past. I did this past time

[01:03:26] in April. California's officer of chain fosters freeze had to close one of its stores because

[01:03:32] they couldn't afford to pay workers after the increase. We would have rather stayed at the

[01:03:41] says one employee. I was Monica Navarro, former assistant general manager at the foster freeze location.

[01:03:48] So again yeah it's not really necessarily helping if you're cutting people's hours or they're just

[01:03:54] getting straight up fired like that's not really helping anybody they're learning guns at all

[01:03:59] but I'm sure you'll you'll use it to grow your union membership. So

[01:04:07] any final thoughts on raising the minimum wage in California? No. All right last one which I

[01:04:15] don't think we have to go too much into but we want to mention it because we're trying to cover

[01:04:19] all of them so that you know this is California Proposition 2 public education facilities bond

[01:04:25] measure okay just to start off I know I said I would never tell you head of out my personal

[01:04:32] mantra whenever I see any proposition this is just me you can decide what you want.

[01:04:39] The minute I see the word it approves a bond I immediately vote now because bonds equal debt

[01:04:46] in California as broke as we are does not need to take out anymore debt. So a yes-folk supports issuing

[01:04:54] $10 billion in bonds to fund construction and modernization of public education facilities

[01:05:00] it would issue $10 billion bonds with $8.5 billion dedicated to the elementary and secondary

[01:05:06] educational facilities in 1.5 billion for community college facilities. Proposition 2 would make

[01:05:12] changes to the formula used to determine the amount each district is required to contribute to be

[01:05:17] eligible to receive state funding from the bond revenue. The measure would have required the

[01:05:22] state government to cover between 50 and 55% of construction project cost and 60 to 65% of modernization

[01:05:29] cost. What is our bond capacity? We are currently repaying an estimated $80 billion in bond

[01:05:38] debt and it's authorized to sell and outstanding $35 billion in bonds. So we can't endlessly borrow

[01:05:46] because remember states are not the federal government they just can't borrow and borrow and borrow and go

[01:05:51] you know trillions of dollars into that state sort of have to keep their budgets balanced.

[01:05:55] So with the passage of Prop 1 this year and now they want to pass this there's going to be less

[01:06:00] overhead for taking out bonds which you know we need it's good to have let's put it this way if

[01:06:07] it's like your personal household you know some people have like that emergency credit card

[01:06:11] that they're like we only use in case of emergency. Like that's maybe the best argument for bonds

[01:06:17] I don't again I don't believe that the state should take on more debt but if we cap out or we

[01:06:25] max out our bond capacity it's not good if we ever need in the future we're still paying off

[01:06:30] debt and we don't have any bond capacity. So supporters shocker, California Federation of teachers

[01:06:39] in the California Labor Federation are for enlory and it can all back in the future. Why is the

[01:06:47] was absolutely hilarious the top donors in support you ready for this? Who would you think are the

[01:06:53] top donors in support of a bond for improving schools or yeah improving school facilities?

[01:07:02] I would assume anyone who can get kickbacks from this possibly this CTA and then labor unions but

[01:07:09] I'll also think in a wrong based on how you introduce the this is the top five

[01:07:17] are all construction companies. So the top five are DLR group who donated 100,000

[01:07:23] net construction 80,000. Ericsson Hall construction 60,000. Tilding Coil constructors pink 60,000

[01:07:33] and Murdock wall wrath in homes 50,000 so not one actual teachers union or anything anybody who's

[01:07:43] involved in but construction companies are lining up because who wouldn't want to get in line for

[01:07:50] $10 billion in bond payments for projects. Right absolutely. I want to ask something about this

[01:08:01] it's kind of multi question and to stop me if I'm wrong because this bond would mean that

[01:08:07] so schools would submit their projects the government would have hurt them and then

[01:08:14] they government would then pay for like between 50 to 60 percent of the construction

[01:08:19] and then the local school district has to kick in the other 40 50 percent.

[01:08:25] Is it from what I understand that comes from property taxes?

[01:08:33] Okay right so property taxes can only increase or I'm sorry there's like there's like a cap

[01:08:40] it's like property taxes like one one percent. Pay thing and they can't just you know charge

[01:08:48] you 3 percent. Oh what they can do is the county decides how much your house is worth every year

[01:08:55] and then charges you your property taxes based on that. I noticed mine have been increasing

[01:09:02] like crazy like I was looking at over and you're allowed to contest this I guess and I didn't

[01:09:08] know that and I like a relationship with my mom and I'm like how are my property taxes getting

[01:09:13] like what we bought the house to this and yes I guess the value of my home has kind of

[01:09:19] I know that but at the same time it seems like the county assessor is

[01:09:26] would have the power to then just like oh let's just increase all the value of all these homes

[01:09:33] and now that 1 percent we're getting X amount more dollars to fund these projects and so now

[01:09:41] the value of your home keeps going up which yay but then on the other hand everyone who's like

[01:09:47] California's unaffordable well yeah and property so am I am I wrong am I think here are

[01:09:54] good standing when I'm saying because I'm not being very articulate but it just seems like

[01:09:59] yeah I think maybe that's the next proposition episode as we talk about the proposition regarding

[01:10:07] taxis and the issue there was one proposition that is currently under court ruling

[01:10:13] but yeah it involves like prop 13 and they've been trying to like nitpick at prop 13 forever

[01:10:19] so you know every year they're trying to like cut back or eliminate prop 13

[01:10:26] so I imagine if they ever succeed in getting prop 13 done away with which and I

[01:10:34] if they get rid of prop 13 I think that might be the nail in the coffin for like the middle

[01:10:38] class here in California because no one would be able to afford like their property taxes based on

[01:10:43] their current values it would just drive people towards the exit yeah and I mean if they get rid of

[01:10:49] prop 13 property taxes go up there's more money they can start to keep in for these construction

[01:10:55] programs so we'll see I know that every year they try and chip away at prop 13 but to answer your

[01:11:04] question I think I think there has to be an objective reasoning for your valuation I don't think

[01:11:10] the counting can just do it arbitrary I don't think they can just be like it's now what's worth

[01:11:14] a million dollars when it was worth five hundred thousand a year before so we'll see how it kind of

[01:11:21] shakes out but regarding this proposition yeah I mean it's a ton of money it's 10 billion dollars

[01:11:27] that's going in school construction and construction companies are all salivating and

[01:11:31] lining up to make that sweet sweet government contract money and all the you know unions who

[01:11:39] supply the construction workers like learning against all's champions they're gonna line up

[01:11:45] to they're all gonna want to get a piece of this so it's more pigs at the trough that is in my opinion

[01:11:51] regarding this and again this my personal opinion I'm not telling anybody how to vote

[01:11:55] please go do your own research and I schools do have to the leagues have to go through upgrades you know

[01:12:01] we don't like kids are starting they a lot of kids have started school this week and last

[01:12:06] week and it's like the hottest week of the year so far here in California Southern California

[01:12:10] and you know broken AC broken windows ventilation all like that well absolutely

[01:12:16] if that kids health and their ability to learn at school and being miserable and like yeah

[01:12:21] like absolutely they these two things need you know I think has to be updated things have to

[01:12:27] be replaced yeah wear and tear is normal yeah well I'm not I'm not arguing that I sure schools need

[01:12:35] to update they can't stay the same forever I mean I feel like some schools got like they got built

[01:12:40] in like the 40s or 50s and then they stayed that way for like four years and they never got

[01:12:45] like updated but another thing that can absolutely happen with this is that then the construction

[01:12:50] companies awarded these projects inflate the prices of the construction you know yeah always

[01:12:55] going to take and take three months and this much in labor and this much in materials wanted

[01:13:02] really could be half that stuff right so yeah and then the vicious cycle continues all over again

[01:13:10] because then those construction companies who I imagine the reason they're donating so much money

[01:13:16] is because they would be the first in line to get these jobs and then the cycle continues

[01:13:22] because the next time something comes up and they need their money they'll kick back more money

[01:13:27] and I'll just keep going around and around that's the the pigs at the trough of Sacramento and how it works

[01:13:33] someone actually said in the chat regarding the minimum wage my daughter works for Chick Fale

[01:13:37] and was working 20 hours a week and now only 10 to 12 because the manager didn't want to fire anyone

[01:13:43] but now he's hired more workers that work for fewer hours so okay that's what happens

[01:13:52] very sad there was are the unintended consequences of economic decisions by politicians oh my gosh

[01:13:59] there was a good book I'm just gonna recommend it and I oh gosh now I can't remember the name of the book

[01:14:05] oh gosh oh my gosh I can all mix one lesson I know you yes yes I've mentioned that before

[01:14:11] if thank you it's yeah if you want to read exactly like what this is this theory about politicians

[01:14:19] why they don't understand this economic and one lesson isn't absolutely fantastic book

[01:14:25] it's Henry Hazlet you can go on mesis.org there's a free like e-book so you can just like go

[01:14:31] download it for free mesis.org has a ton of really great books anyway for free and I mean the

[01:14:37] state is another one I highly recommend that book before I ever even knew you and then you recommended

[01:14:41] I was like hey I have the right it's a great book um you read it and it kind of opens your eyes

[01:14:47] and you're like wow politicians really have no idea what they're doing when it comes to economics but

[01:14:52] basically the theory is is that everything has a reaction and people don't factor in that reaction

[01:15:00] or the causation of what happens down the line and minimum wage is a perfect example so

[01:15:06] all right we covered a lot tonight that was three propositions out of the 10 we're going to

[01:15:12] plow our way through the rest of them you know over the next couple weeks leading up to the

[01:15:19] election so that your way you guys can get super informed and like I said if you have any questions

[01:15:24] commiels dms or wide open on instagram so just go ask her now you can message me as well if you

[01:15:30] have any questions about the truth you don't you might answer your own shout out so they can't even

[01:15:33] message me so well it's right there and then if you're watching the video it's at communal dot

[01:15:39] bathening so go there yeah so if you have any questions please feel free to try to be helpful so I was

[01:15:45] a me sarcastic but now what I do you often you often yeah we uh I try to respond to everybody as

[01:15:54] as possible so my deans I'm not just kind of like blank itally looking I'm like I try and

[01:15:58] respond to everybody and give feedback all right we're a little bit over our normal hour but hey

[01:16:05] we need to talk about those stuff there's a lot to talk about and it's only going to get crazier

[01:16:09] with the election coming up in November so any final thoughts before we sign off?

[01:16:15] Didn't know. Okay thanks for two to again and now we're getting very long wind at lately

[01:16:20] yeah well thank you for you know maybe it's two car rides or two commutes this podcast now

[01:16:27] break it up into two commutes you know like morning commute and then come back in the afternoon

[01:16:32] all right as we always finish every show make sure you like share subscribe review hit that

[01:16:37] notification bell on everything from Instagram YouTube Twitter whatever x whatever they call it now

[01:16:45] make sure you get notified of what's happening we're on rumble as well subscribe like share review

[01:16:49] hit the notification bell all that stuff leave a comment that always helps with the algorithm

[01:16:54] helps more people find us and the best and absolute free way to support this show is to share with

[01:17:00] someone who probably has a bunch of questions about propositions just like you do if you're listening

[01:17:05] to this so if they have questions about propositions send them this way specifically on these

[01:17:10] pop propositions so until the next one we'll we'll see you later have a good night.

[01:17:29] I'd like to subscribe and subscribe and follow California Underground on social media for

[01:17:34] updates as to when new episodes are available