While California Burns, Newsom Podcasts

[00:00:06] If you're a California conservative, a libertarian, a moderate Democrat, believe in common sense, or just the sane person, this is the political podcast for you. It's the California Underground Podcast.

[00:00:27] What's going on, everybody? Thanks for tuning in to another episode of the California Underground Podcast, the most trusted podcast on all things California politics. I'm your host, Phil. And as always, with me, my trusted co-host, the best, the fastest researcher in the West. Camille, how are you doing? That's good. Thank you. How are you? Not too bad for a chilly Sunday afternoon here in San Diego. And by chilly, I mean 62 degrees. So to everyone on the East Coast, I'm sorry.

[00:00:56] It's cold to us, Southern Californians. I know we always start off talking about the weather, but, you know, when it comes to California and it drops below 75 in Southern California, that's a big deal. You know, we kind of freak out. Oh, my God. Just to keep you warm during the podcast. You can be cozy in my hot water.

[00:01:14] Whatever it takes to get through the podcast without freezing. So tonight, yeah, we got a bunch of things to talk about. We just passed our 300th episode, which we're very excited about. Thank you again to everybody who has been here with us, whether for one episode or 300 episodes. If you've been here for 300 episodes, I want to send you some free merch or something. That's pretty impressive.

[00:01:41] All right. We got a couple of things to talk about today. We got Prop 36, which the legislature has no idea how they're going to pay for it, even though the voters said they want it by an overwhelming margin. Fast food council wants to raise fast food at minimum wage again by 70 cents. And Gavin Newsom, as if he doesn't have enough on his plate, decided I'm going to start a new podcast. So we got a bunch of that going on tonight. We're going to dive into all of it.

[00:02:09] Make sure you like, share, subscribe, review before we get going. Hit that follow by hit that notification bell. That all helps. All right. Starting off this episode's cringe moment is different than most of our cringe moments because we actually don't have a video. I mean, there's video, but like it's not good video or like you're not really going to get anything out of the video. So but I figured it fits here in this cringe moment because let's just be fair.

[00:02:39] It was cringe. And I think most people reacted to this online as this really, really was cringe. What I'm talking about is that the Trump administration had pumped up the fact that they were going to release the Epstein files. They had said tomorrow's the day we're going to release the Epstein files. It's a big thing. They invited a whole bunch of conservative influencers to the White House. D.C. Drano, Chad Pranther. Panther. Is that how you seem? Practically. I don't remember.

[00:03:09] I thought it was Prather, but I could be wrong. Chad, whatever, you know, big cowboy hat. That's somebody. Liz Wheeler, former OAN person. House and Habit was also, I guess, there. Libs of TikTok was there. So a bunch of influencers online and I think you were the first one to text me to say that they were giving it to the influencers. And I thought to myself, I was like, maybe they figure they're the media. So give it to them before it goes through the filter of the media.

[00:03:37] And then I saw the videos and I saw them hoisting them high and showing the people in the cameras and showing off their binders that they got. And they were all excited and they were all like, look, we got the binders. And then it got even worse because they opened them all up and it was all stuff we already knew. It was redacted stuff that's actually unredacted on the Internet that you can go find. So it was really cringe because it was just handled really poorly.

[00:04:06] What are your thoughts about this whole Epstein file rollout? I believe it was bad optics for the White House. I don't blame any influencer who was there. Allegedly, they were there for a different event when the files came out and Attorney General Pam Bondi printed up these binders for them. And as I said to you, and I don't want to speak for you, but I think not that there's any reason that we would have been invited.

[00:04:33] But I think had we been invited, I think we would absolutely jump to the chance without thinking about the backlash and the optics of it. It would have just been like, we're invited to this exclusive moment at the White House. Of course, we're going to go. Like, I don't think anybody would say no to that. And so I feel like these group of influencers actually kind of used like, and I don't know for what.

[00:04:58] It felt like they were like pawns in some weird game because, yes, they went to whatever meeting and then they were like, oh, look, we've got these binders for you. These Epstein files that are going to be released in a few hours. Do what you will with them. And some of them put some stuff behind a paywall. It's like, if you subscribe to my private channel, my sub stack, whatever, then I'm going to share this information.

[00:05:21] So it was kind of like giving them an opportunity to monetize off of public information or that like public interest information, I should say. And then, like you said, it turns out it was information that was already out there. The unredacted information is out there and they were given a bunch of printed redacted information. Nothing new came out. Like we were promised.

[00:05:47] And I felt like, and I'm not one to be like, so what's, what real story are they trying to cover up? But I felt like something else must be going on that they're trying to push the attention onto this, the White House that is. That was kind of my gut reaction to it. It was like, what's really happening? What story are we trying to bury elsewhere? And I generally don't feel that way. I don't know if this was damage control.

[00:06:11] But that same night I saw some people like our good friend, Anthony, say that he heard from sources inside the White House that it was totally uncoordinated on Pam Bondi's part, that she went ahead with it, that she did not clear it with the White House, how she was going to do this with the influencers and all this stuff. She was also upset that the file she got from the FBI. Yeah, it's just a lot of finger pointing and blame game. And it just, it looks really bad.

[00:06:40] And it looks really bad when you talk about being the most transparent administration in history. You know, it was just a bad look. I'm not going to fault the whole administration and say I'm not listening to them from here on out. You know, administrations are going to have fumbles. They're not going to nail everything. I think even the influencers felt like they got used a little bit.

[00:07:01] There was a point where someone pointed out that all of them had the same exact talking points where they all literally tweeted the same exact thing, which seemed like scripted talking points that they were given. I think it was like all DC Drano and Jack Posbiak and like Chad Brett. They all had like the same talking points, which were weird. And they all, they're all pointing fingers at each other saying, no, that's not true. It just, it's a complete mess on their part.

[00:07:30] And I feel like the people who tried to monetize this information that people have been waiting for that they were expecting or that they were duped into thinking like, oh, if I pay, I'll get like exclusive access to these Epstein files.

[00:07:43] When other influencers were already offering it or talking about it, it seems, you know, like, I don't know, shameful might be the right word or it might seem selfish or narrow sighted in the sense of like, okay, you were given this opportunity by the administration, the White House to get this information, get it out to your followers, not be a filter. And not be the media who goes through it first and then picks and chooses.

[00:08:10] It was an opportunity for like the independent media, which the Trump administration is trying to promote more of because let's be honest, the independent media did help him get elected. Podcasts and stuff like that helped him get elected. So I could see why they might've thought giving it to influencers was a good idea. Give it to the influencers, let them tell all their followers.

[00:08:33] It gets out there on the internet before CNN or MSNBC has a chance to go through it with a fine tooth comb and edit it and put the narrative out there already. But overall, it was just a really, really bad look. And, you know, I hopefully phase two of the Epstein files actually has a little bit more substance to it than what we've seen already. You know, not rehash stuff that's been redacted, that's unredacted. But we'll see.

[00:09:02] And not a great rollout, not a great look. Definitely cringe in the sense of like it just. Yeah, I don't know. Did I mention that I saw someone talk about how they are the, they are now the PR agents of the administration this way. It kind of feels like they're running public relations on behalf of the administration. That's, I don't know. I agree with that. If that's, you're going to be kind of touting that line. So what are your thoughts?

[00:09:31] Technology these days is amazing. And it took time to print up, to photocopy and put together those binders. But I feel like at that same amount of time, those files could have been scanned and the White House could have just put them online. Yeah. Yeah. Announced here they are. And so, again, I don't blame any of the influencers who were there. I just don't think that they thought about the backlash in optics.

[00:09:59] And I don't agree with them getting all the backlash. Now it's turned into Laura Loomer's like going after everybody. And she's blocking everybody. And then Pam Bondi's personal account has blocked her personal attorney general account. Just stuff like that, which is, this issue is going to blow over so quickly. We're talking about it, yes, because we're talking about it like it was a cringe moment. And, you know, new news is going to come out today or tomorrow that we're all going to be talking about. We're going to forget about this.

[00:10:29] But it is kind of funny how this has become like these women in their 40s and 50s are fighting online and blocking each other. That adds an extra layer of cringe on top of this. And, yes, these influencers and their podcasts and their social media accounts did help with getting, you know, they were up front and personal with the Trump during his run, during his election. And it did help. They were getting like real information out in real time.

[00:10:57] And people were seeing a different perspective. And I do believe that did help get him elected. And so you can see how he would be like, here's, you know, here's a little token of my appreciation. Let me invite you all to the White House. But, again, just in this particular situation, it was just bad optics. Well, I mean, we already got news on Friday. Was it when Zelensky showed up? I feel like it already blew over once the whole Zelensky thing happened. We're not going to talk about the Zelensky thing.

[00:11:26] But that was one of the first thoughts I had was, well, there goes that whole debacle over the Epstein files. Now everyone's talking about what happened in the Oval Office. So that's politics for you. You know, 24-hour news cycle. It's a big deal. And then before you know it, especially with this administration, it feels like before you know it, we were already on to another thing. And it's just like trying to keep up is a lot of work. All right. On to our first topic of the night, Prop 36.

[00:11:55] For those of you who do not remember, it wasn't that long ago, but Prop 36 passed by an overwhelming margin. Basically what it was, it was to repeal and reform parts of Prop 47 and criminal justice here in California. Basically crack down on crime. We don't have to go into the specifics, but it passed by an overwhelming margin. Like it wasn't even close. It was 70-30. All 58 counties passed it. Yeah.

[00:12:24] Which is historic to say the least. 70-30. Gavin Newsom hated Prop 36. He campaigned against it. He wanted to kill it. Certain California Democrats wanted to kill it. They introduced bills with what they call poison pills. It was a debacle. But the people of California spoke and they said, listen, we want Prop 36 and we want it overwhelmingly. And 70-30 voted in favor of it. That is the will of the people.

[00:12:50] It is very hard to get Californians, I think, to agree that much. 70% of Californians voters to agree on one thing. And we did it. We got that many people to vote on a pro-crime bill. Pro-criminal justice bill. Not pro-crime. We're not pro-crime. Pro-criminal justice. That'd be weird. Like, we're voting for more crime. Bring in more crime. Why not? Make it really interesting in California. Blagging about our pro-crime bills over here. Yeah.

[00:13:17] You know, life is too easy with this 65-degree weather. Let's just create more crime to keep things interesting. But the problem is, is now Prop 36 is law. And the legislature doesn't know how to fund it. So all the things that need to go into place, which includes a whole bunch of law enforcement officials, personnel, court services, stuff like that.

[00:13:43] The legislature this week came out and said, we have no idea how we're going to pay for this. And we got to figure it out because the people voted for it. So here's a video from KCRA with Ashley Zavala talking about how they are clueless on what they're going to do for money to pay for this overwhelmingly popular proposition. Proposition 36, the ballot measure itself, did not come with a specific funding strategy

[00:14:10] for the increased felony caseload in the courts and prison system. So now lawmakers are left to figure out how exactly to make this most effective and how much money is needed to do that. The voters have spoken and we are committed to fund and to implement Proposition 36. California state senators on Tuesday held this special hearing on California's new crime measure, Prop 36. It reinstated felony sentences in prison time for some repeat theft and drug crimes.

[00:14:39] We also have to understand that it was the result of years of inaction. Now, two months after the law took effect, lawmakers spent three hours listening to local law enforcement, public defenders, courts, and county health officials on the impact so far. I don't know if you caught that, but did I just notice Scott Wiener's name was up there, but he is also not present on this. Oh, I didn't catch that. I think, yeah, I saw, I thought I saw his name. I said, is that Scott D Wiener? Yeah. Okay. Not there.

[00:15:09] So gives you any idea how he probably voted on Prop 36. And what's needed. Governor Newsom's administration expects the new law to mean an extra 4,000 people in California prisons. And money for that is earmarked in the state budget. The courts estimate they'll need more resources to handle the extra 30 to 40,000 estimated felony cases statewide, with 56% of them theft related and 44% of them drug related. We lack a lot.

[00:15:37] But local panelists said the major missing piece is the resources for the treatment mandated felony, which is an option Prop 36 promised the state would provide so offenders could get drug or mental health services. Those testifying said local governments lack the systems to get people to help. So many of the offenders are sitting in jail waiting.

[00:15:57] In Stanislaus County, over 140 mandated treatment felonies have been filed since January 1st. All of these individuals were arrested and booked into jail. And many of them remain in jail right now. After the hearing, I asked Prop 36 supporter and the Senate's Republican budget vice chairman about this. Should the proponents have thought this through maybe a little bit more to make it more effective as soon as it took effect?

[00:16:27] Well, that begs the question of whether the legislature should have tackled this to begin with, which of course it did not. So from here, lawmakers and the governor will figure out how to fund this through the state's budget process. Right now, negotiations are underway for next year's state spending plan. That plan is typically finalized at the end of June. Reporting at the state capitol, Ashley Zavala, KCRA 3 News.

[00:16:52] We also checked in with the leaders of Prop 36 campaign about all of this in a statement. Greg Totten said, in part, Proposition 36 is demonstrating its effectiveness in providing law enforcement with the necessary tools to hold repeat retail thieves accountable. The statement continues. We are continuing to encourage our elected officials to respect the will of the people by ensuring Prop 36 is integrated effectively with our current laws and allocate additional resources

[00:17:21] to enhance accountable drug treatment programs. There you go. Legislature's trying to figure out how to pay for something that is overwhelmingly popular with Californians. To give you a little what Ashley Zavala was asking, the vice, I think he was vice co-chair, co-chair of the Prop 36 committee that got it passed. So basically, they're the group that authored the bill that got it all the way through.

[00:17:51] They got the signatures and everything. She asked, did you think that it was an oversight to not include language in terms of funding it? And that's a fair question because usually when you pass these bills or you put these propositions on, it's a good idea to tell people like how you're going to pay for it and how you write these propositions. He kind of threw it back on the legislature to say like, well, I don't know why they haven't figured out how they're going to fund this.

[00:18:20] And they're both fair criticisms in my estimation. I think the people who started Prop 36 probably should have figured out how to fund it. Maybe they didn't want to put that in there because of the fact that when you get into that, there becomes an argument of, well, if you want to fund from this or you take money from that, then you want to take money from, I don't know. It's always the same thing. They want to take money from school kids and seniors and puppy dogs and free ice cream or something like that.

[00:18:50] Maybe that's why they left it out. Maybe they didn't think of it. But regardless, we're here now. Prop 36 passed by a enormous margin. It is incredibly popular with the people of California. People are looking forward to this happening. People, I think, arrests are already beginning to happen under this new law. It doesn't change the fact that it's not funded, that it hasn't gone into effect. So the actual criminal infractions and reclassification of felonies has already started.

[00:19:18] And you're starting to see people get arrested under these new laws. The issue is, how are we funding it to implement a lot of these new cases? Probably the increase in prison capacity and prison population. How are we going to pay for that? You would think that with everything that they were doing, and they saw that this was coming, and they saw how popular it was, you think the legislature would have gotten out in front of this several months ago.

[00:19:48] We are now in March. And this passed by a wide margin on November 6th. Like, it wasn't, we were sitting here waiting to figure out the results of Prop 36. It was done on November 6th. Like, we knew it was passed. You don't think at any time between then and now, maybe the legislature should have been like, hey guys, maybe we should figure out how to fund this thing. No way, I got it.

[00:20:16] Let's give $50 million for Trump-proofing California. That's really, that's the priority here. What are your thoughts? Right. Yes. So it is a fair question of, okay, this passed. So what's the plan for funding? Absolutely. It's a concern. We know California's broke. I have an idea. There was a $6 billion bond passed last March, a year ago.

[00:20:44] Proposition one for 2024, which was $6 billion to go to homelessness. And not that I don't care about homeless people, but we know that we can't even figure out where the $24 billion in the last four years went. And I feel like maybe we figure out where that went before we even throw another dime at homelessness. And so maybe this $6 billion that has been earmarked, which I asked Grok and so far, nothing has been done with that.

[00:21:12] It's supposed to start later this year or like mid-year or something where they start. And okay, I understand these things take time, especially when you're dealing with such large numbers. You're not just going to sit down and like in 10 minutes, you know, with a little notepad and a pen and write out calculator and be like, okay, cool. We figured this out. This is how it's going to all to be allocated. Great. Let's okay. Next. Like, all right. I understand that.

[00:21:33] I do, but we keep passing bills and propositions for money that goes nowhere all the time. It is at this point like, well, like you said, this baby for the last, ever since we swore in the new legislator, what, December 2nd or something like that, which, so that's been

[00:21:59] three months now, three months is plenty of time to have started special sessions and thinking about this and have committee meetings and to get somewhere like, Hey, this is coming up and we're going to, you know, the budget for the next year, we're going to start honing in on that. And we need to allocate. Let's figure out. And then each committee could be, could have been meeting with these, the officers. I know mental health is a big one, but they could have started individual meetings and been like, okay, this is the approximate budget we need for X, Y, and Z.

[00:22:29] And on a totally like another note, didn't she say, correct me if I'm wrong, that, uh, there was a, it can be an additional, like 4,000 ish people in prison and Gavin Newsom knew that like, that was his estimate. And he knew that, and we have the money for that. Did she say that? Did I, um, I didn't, I didn't catch that. Maybe she said that. Yeah. I thought she said something like that.

[00:22:55] And if, if I'm wrong, I'm sorry that I'm wrong, but if she did say that, and so Gavin Newsom knew that this was going to create, like there was at least 4,000 people right now that should be in prison. And yet he fought so hard against this proposition that sickens me. Yeah. Um, you know, there isn't there, there is something to that idea that part of prop 36

[00:23:22] was rehabilitation for those who are arrested for drugs and, and, um, some other crimes. So there isn't, there is a component to that as well. I think there is a diversion program, which is included option. That was an option. So that was an option for people who get arrested for certain drug crimes. Um, I feel like that might be an overlap with prop one. So maybe there is some money from prop one.

[00:23:49] So I think you might be onto an actually good idea of prop one has this idea of more rehabilitation centers and drug rehab. Why are we not using that as well for maybe prop 36? That doesn't address the fact that, uh, there is a lot more law enforcement. There's going to be a lot of more court issues, like thousands and thousands of cases already on a court system that is strained and over overworked already.

[00:24:19] That many more cases is going to make it extremely hard for these courts to actually get done what they need to get done. Um, we often think like, you know, these things just happen and that courts all of a sudden just figure it out. But in reality, like when you're in and out of court, if they are slammed, there's only so many hours in the day. And so many times you can take a hearing and how many people you can hear in a day. Like these judges are not, they're not Tesla robots. They don't know how to just do it all the time. They're not Grok. They're not Grok. They can't do all these fancy things.

[00:24:49] Um, so what are we going to do? Are we going to hire more judges? We're going to hire more bailiffs? Like there's a lot that goes into, especially criminal court. Criminal court is if you've ever been in criminal court and seen how many people are involved just in a one courtroom for criminal court of, you know, bailiffs and people taking criminals out to face the judge and all this, like it's a lot of people that involved, not to mention there's going to be a higher strain on district attorney's offices who are now going to be trying a lot more of these cases.

[00:25:19] So these cases that were previously not the, you know, they, they were not felonies. Now all of a sudden they are felonies. So now all of a sudden district attorneys up and down the state are like, oh crap. Now we actually have to try these as felonies. This is a big change in how we do this. So, but regardless, it still does come back to the legislature and it does look increasingly bad when you had no problem rushing back to Sacramento to Trump proof California for $50 million.

[00:25:48] Somehow you found $50 million, no problem. But when it came to something that the people of California overwhelmingly voted for, you're still sitting there scratching your head going, well, I don't know where we're going to get the money from. And it's like, well, where did you get the money for $50 million for Trump proofing California? Where did that come from? Sure. Like you made that appear out of thin air. So why can't you figure out how to make money, like any money appear for prop 36? It, you know, it's just infuriating.

[00:26:16] I think it just shows the disconnect between Sacramento and the people is like, even if the people of California overwhelmingly vote for something, Sacramento is just so in lockstep with a super majority that they just almost don't care. And they just appear disconnected from what the people want. Right. I have two thoughts. Okay. Okay. So speaking of grok, I actually asked grok about the allocation of proposition. You grokked. In 2024. I grokked. Is that the verb?

[00:26:46] Grokked? I have no idea how to, how we are verbing and nouning all of this, but we're just going to make it up as we go. So regarding prop one, which was the hopelessness, you know, bond $6.38 billion. So proposition one allocates the 6.38 billion as follows. $4.4 billion for the behavioral health continuum infrastructure program to build or expand facilities

[00:27:13] for mental health and substance use disorder treatment, aiming to create approximately 6,800 treatment beds. $2 billion for supportive housing, primarily through the Home Key Plus program, targeting veterans and individuals at risk of or experiencing homelessness with behavioral health challenges. This includes $1 billion specifically reserved for veterans. Additionally, the proposition redirects existing Mental Health Services Act funds from 1% tax

[00:27:42] on incomes over $1 million by requiring counties to spend 30% of this revenue, estimated $1 billion to $1.5 billion annually, on housing and personalized support services rather than other mental health programs. So that's kind of interesting. Both are important, yes, but proposition one took funding.

[00:28:05] Not all funding, but some from the Mental Health Services Act to put into housing. And now here they are. One article I read talked about the mental health issue. And now here they are saying, how are we going to fund the mental health aspect of proposition 36? And yet proposition one took funding from that. Maybe we give it back. Maybe. I don't know. I mean, they're willing to move funds around.

[00:28:35] So they're just going to have to start looking at where. And again, and this episode is totally not supposed to be about homelessness, but I'm just bringing these to these both these propositions passed last year. And they're saying we can afford one. We can't afford the other. And homelessness is definitely a huge issue in California. You and I are both pro-smaller government, and it seems like the government's in everything. And where we all are pro-government is like, keep us safe. We want, you know, we want cops.

[00:29:05] We want our emergency services, our first responders. Like, we absolutely want those funded. Low crime is no crime. It's kind of a priority. And those are the basics that government should be providing for us. All the other, you know, Pride Month and just everything else like that. It's like we can do without all those extras, and we don't need the government meddling in those things.

[00:29:27] But as far as funding first responders to keep us safe, yeah, I think we all agree on that. Yeah. Well, they're still figuring it out, and they're going to have to figure it out. I mean, it's by law. I think that they have to figure it out by June. They have to implement and figure out how they're going to pay for this. So, you know, it's not like it's not going to get funded.

[00:29:55] But the question, I guess, does remain why wait so long when you knew this was going to happen? Like, you kind of kick this can down the road long enough, and now all of a sudden you're like, well, we don't know how we're going to pay for it. So we're going to have to figure it out. But by law, you've got to figure it out. So, you know, get cracking on that money. Maybe give some of that Trump-proofing California money back. I mean, $25 million still goes a long way in California. Just take half of your Trump-proofing. I can't believe that was their first priority special session.

[00:30:26] Well, I mean, I'm not surprised at all. I mean, I'm not surprised that this was the top thing that they wanted to virtue signal to everyone else is, oh, we're standing against Trump. But we're not standing for the people of California who voted for X, Y, and Z.

[00:30:40] So for all the people on the left who scream about democracy and how we have to protect democracy, it seems like whenever we as a state actually democratically approve something like a proposition, all of a sudden they're not a fan of that democracy. But there's numerous examples of why Democrats in Sacramento hate actual democracy. But anyway, all right. Obviously, a continuing story.

[00:31:08] We'll keep an eye on whether they figure out how to pay for this or not. But just giving you a heads up that they don't know how they're going to pay for it. Next story. What's going on, everybody? I want to take a quick minute and talk about today's sponsor for our show, Stopbox. If you're not familiar with Stopbox, it is a firearm retention device. No electronics, no biometrics, nothing like that that can get in the way if there's an oncoming threat and you need quick and easy access to your firearm. It is literally just this finger combination on the top.

[00:31:38] Push it in. Boom. Hear that nice little click. And it is wide open for you for your firearm. It can fit compact, subcompact, even full-size pistols, which is nice. They have added this new magazine, extra magazine holder. Also very nice. My wife and I both have our own Stopbox because we both know that when there's an oncoming threat in seconds count, you don't want to be fumbling around with electronics or keys or biometrics or anything like that.

[00:32:02] So now listeners of this show can enjoy 10% off their order at Stopbox if they go to stopbox.com forward slash California underground. They'll get that discount. Support the show. You can support Stopbox. And this is proudly made in the good old U.S. of A. So go to stopbox.com forward slash California underground for your discount. And let's get back to the show. So fast food workers, they just got a raise recently.

[00:32:31] But it turns out that's not really enough for them. Fast food council is a story out of California Globe. Not that story. Finding another story. I'm like you. I have way too many tabs open right now. California Globe fast food council approves motion to possibly raise state fast food minimum wage by another 70 cents. I would vote to raise it to $20 and 70 cents by the end of May.

[00:32:58] The California fast food council approved a motion to consider raising the minimum wage for fast food workers by another 70 cents per hour on Wednesday with a vote on the matter expected at their next meeting in either April or May. The fast food wage in California shot up dramatically in April 2024 following the passing and signing of AB 1228 in late 2023. Tied to the state minimum wage of $16 an hour, the new minimum wage was set to $20 an hour.

[00:33:28] The entire fast food industry began to struggle as a result. Some like Chipotle and McDonald's raised prices. Others invested in automated kiosks and other automated devices to help reduce the number of employees. Some stores outright closed, including most Rubio's Coastal Grill locations in California. Sad local San Diego institution. Rubio's is mostly out of business. Worse yet, layoffs swiftly went into the thousands, but things grew worse.

[00:33:54] In June, a Hoover Institute at Stanford University study cited by the California Business and Industrial Alliance found that thousands of fast food jobs were lost as a result of AB 1228, something which the Newsom administration publicly and vehemently deny for months. By July, a new survey found that 74% of California fast food restaurant owners said that there's increase in the likelihood of shutting their restaurants down.

[00:34:20] Now, you sent this to me a couple hours ago prior to you had done some more research. You grok'd. Grok'd. You grok'd. I never used grok until literally like the last episode when you mentioned how much fun you're having on. I'm like, give it a try. Okay. Yeah. It's addicting because it's so damn easy to just go grok. I don't know if that's the correct verbiage, but that's what we're saying. We're going to be the pioneers of the grok verbiage. Okay.

[00:34:50] So you sent me some stuff that you found on grok. Why don't you tell me what you found? Oh, I don't have it in front of me. Do you have it in front of me? Oh, no. Okay. All right. So you sent me something from grok. Sorry. I thought you were already, you had this like open and ready to go. This is not how this goes. You were too busy grokking other things. Yes. Well, yeah, I have the proposition one stuff in front of me. So. Okay. So there's like conflicting reports is what we're trying to say. Right.

[00:35:20] Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics cited by California Globe lost at 6,000 fast food jobs in September, 2023 with 5,416 of those losses occurring between January, 2024 and the reports released. Berkeley Research says found that fast food restaurants lost 10,000 jobs between 2023 and 2024. This period includes time before and after the wage increase, implying that not all losses

[00:35:49] can be directly attributed to the law. Center for Jobs in September of 24 said this source notes that a net loss of 5,416 jobs since January, 2024, aligning with the Bureau of Labor Statistics data and suggests that earlier job estimates might be overestimated by up to 10,000. And then some contrasting claims, the UC Berkeley's Institute for Research on Labor and Employment argued that the wage increase did not lead to overall job losses, citing stable employment

[00:36:18] and roughly 18% pay raise for workers. And Governor Newsom's office also claimed an addition of 10,000 jobs from March to May of 2024, though this is contested by industry groups. So a ton of numbers thrown out is really, but the one, the constant IC that keeps coming up is that it's five, almost 5,500 were lost. Which is a lot. It's still a lot.

[00:36:48] Like it's not 10,000, 10,000, I think was the one that went viral. So if it's 10,000 between before it actually went into effect and after, maybe places were getting, there's a possibility that a lot of these restaurants were preparing for the higher wage and started to get rid of workers. So they didn't have to pay them. That could be a fact. You know, just because it was one after another doesn't mean they were a result of, it was probably in anticipation of this new minimum wage.

[00:37:17] So they're getting rid of workers. And like this article stated, they did start automating more kiosks. I think like, I saw someone that now it's like AI does drive-thrus now. Like you can do AI drive-thrus. Like you drive up and it's not Grok. In your self-driving Tesla, you drive up to a drive-thru that now is operated by Grok. I saw that.

[00:37:42] I saw a video of someone like driving up and it was AI and they literally drove up and the voice on the other side sounded like a human. And they said, hi, welcome to Wendy's. What can I get you? And you say it and the screen lists it out. And sure enough, you show up on the other side and you pay for it and drive away. So I mean, technology is amazing. But one point two, there's the job loss, but there's also hours lost because a lot of fast food companies then started cutting back on hours.

[00:38:12] And maybe they had full-time employees that when you have a full-time employee, you're often paying for like their health insurance. There's, you know, there's the extra benefits there. So when you can cut them back, then you can cut back those expenses to save money. Because like, it might be the article that you were reading from at the bottom. They're like, we're having to choose between paying employees more or charging our customers more. That's not how it was worded. That was wrong.

[00:38:39] Um, but there were some, it was like somebody gets hurt, whether it's our employees or us where somebody gets hurt and, um, and they have to make that choice. And that's, I'm glad you brought that up. Okay. Because I found a study done by Harvard business. Okay. And they put this study out that they had studied, uh, wage data from 2015 to 2018, more than 5,000 employees at 45 stores in California where the minimal wage was $9 in 2015.

[00:39:07] They increased it every year since then. This is stores or cost food? So this was, this was stores. Okay. The whole thing was minimum wage. So we're getting into the idea of like, cause you were brought up, maybe they got paid more, but they got less hours. Um, and does it really in the end equal out? So, so this study went on to say, based on this analysis, we found that increasing the minimum wage had no statistically significant impact on the total number of labor hours employed at a given store.

[00:39:37] In other words, stores hired workers to work for the same overall number of hours, regardless of whether minimum wage increased. Okay. So you think that doesn't sound bad, but when you think about it, it's like, well, stores are still open the same amount of time. Like those hours still need to be covered by somebody. So yeah, the number of labor hours at a store did not go down, but this is where it gets interesting.

[00:40:05] However, our data suggests that the way in which those hours were allocated among workers did change for every $1 increase in the minimum wage. We found that the total number of workers scheduled to work each week increased by 27.7%. While the average number of hours, each worker worked per week decreased by 20.8%. For an average store in California, these changes translated into four extra workers per week in

[00:40:32] five fewer hours per worker per week, which meant that the total wage compensation for an average minimum wage worker in California store actually fell by 13.6%. This decrease in the average number of hours worked not only reduced total wages, but also impacted eligibility for benefits. We found that for every $1 increase in minimum wage, the percentage of workers working more than 20 hours per week, making them eligible for retirement benefits decreased by 23%.

[00:41:00] While the percentage of workers with more than 30 hours per week, making them eligible for healthcare benefits decreased by 15%. This suggests that as minimum wage increases, firms may strategically adjust their scheduling practices to reduce the number of workers eligible for benefits. Our estimates suggest that the average store in California data set recouped approximately 27.5% of the increase in its wage costs through savings associated with reducing benefits.

[00:41:29] So I think whether it's 5,000 or 10,000, I don't think we're looking at it completely right. I think we're looking at the fact that it doesn't matter if you raise it to $20 and 70 cents or $50 an hour. At the end of the day, I think stores will figure out how to move people around schedule, hire more part-time workers.

[00:41:57] At the end of the day, they'll figure out that you're actually not getting compensated as much as you think you are. You may have worked 35 to 40 hours on this old minimum wage, but as it goes up, you're actually going to start getting less. So your hours are going down, thus your paycheck is going down. So I thought that was pretty interesting that we're all looking at numbers of jobs. I mean, that's a big thing too, like looking at the number of jobs and how much have been lost.

[00:42:26] But I think the overall point was, well, people need to make more money because they work in fast food. But every time you increase the minimum wage, it looks like people are not making as much as you think, which is why they keep saying we need a bigger minimum wage. So it's just like this vicious cycle. Yeah. Right. And then we're not even getting into the inflation aspect of that. Right. Yeah. Yeah. The article says, this is going back to California Globe.

[00:42:57] Despite all this, unions continue to push for 70 cents per hour increase, citing a need for 3.5% cost of living increase, which, you know, not everyone's getting 3.5% increase in their raises. The continued pushing against a growing force against AB 1228 led to Wednesday when the Fast Food Council announced that a vote on the 70 cent increase would come at their next meeting. Quote, we haven't recovered yet from the hike of $4 per hour last year.

[00:43:25] One KFC franchisee owner told the Globe, it was the wage increase in the higher cost of everything that caused us to raise prices. And we don't like to. This isn't a grieve thing. This is a staying afloat thing. We cannot afford another increase right now. You know, the crazy thing workers are still saying they can't afford to live on these wages, but we had to cut their hours to not go out of business. That's the problem. It's losing shift hours, not the wage. The council needs to give us time to adjust and we need more studies showing just exactly

[00:43:54] what the wage increase did. Once things settle down and we give more workers, workers more hours back, then we can discuss more options. So, yeah. When it comes to inflation, it's, you know, trying to keep up with the cost of inflation. Everyone's trying to keep up with the cost of inflation when it comes to raising their pay. But as KFC owner. Now I'm from Gravy Rubio's. Now you're from Gravy Rubio's. And it's out of business.

[00:44:22] No, we had a, it was my nephew's birthday and we had a family pizza party at a local pizza place. And so it was like my parents, my sisters, multiple sisters, lots, lots of kids. But, um, so I think my mom had ordered a salad or something like that. And, um, they gave ranch dressing and she wanted Italian dressing and she would have asked for Italian dressing and they wanted to charge her 92 cents for like a little thing. And, okay. It's 92 cents.

[00:44:51] This is not the end of the world. My dad is old. Okay. My dad is, he's like, he's 76. He's one, he's set in his ways. You just, you're not going to change his opinion on anything, but he's like, to me and my sisters, he's like, I'm going to go say something. And we're like, dad, everybody is charging everything for this. Are you not, are you not aware what's happening? Like this is, he's a business owner. He's not a fast food business owner, but he's a small business owner.

[00:45:17] But we're like, you go any fast food place and they'll give you like one little, whatever side of sauce, but then they're going to charge you for the additional packets. Like this is just reality. Or like, please, please don't really stink about this. Please, please, like, please just don't be that person today. But, um, so yeah, my mom paid her 92 cents for her little Italian dressing. Interesting. But it's, yeah, that's because that's what's happening. I mean, they have to recoup it somewhere. Exactly.

[00:45:47] It's, uh, it seems like it's, it's, they're, they're never going to stop requesting to raise the minimum wage because I don't think they completely, well, it's not that they don't completely understand. I think a lot of these unions that are pushing this understand that this might hurt, but it does give them something to talk about in the sense of like, this is what we're fighting for. We're fighting for your higher minimum wage. You know, that's people like Bernie Sanders who, you know, doesn't understand economics. If, you know, it fell on his head.

[00:46:17] Um, they're always complaining about, we need a higher minimum wage. We need a higher minimum wage. And they always often neglect the fact that there are many factors that go into harming the people that you're trying to protect by raising the minimum wage. And you know, that Harvard business study says one thing, which I can totally see is, and we're seeing it here in California is that workers are getting their hours cut. They're not getting a lot of the benefits that they would if they were over 30 hours.

[00:46:46] So they're losing out on that compensation. They're losing hours because, well, we're, they're not going to pay you to be there 40 hours a week if they can cut back to 25 hours a week. So your whole paycheck went down. Awesome. Um, and it also, I mean, it brings up the question of like why, you know, it comes back to California being so unaffordable. Another big question. Why is California so damn expensive, like rent and everything like that?

[00:47:14] Um, like somebody in this article, Veronica Gonzalez says the cost of my rent medicine has gone up. I can't live on this wage. Well, you know, California is expensive and maybe we should all start talking about why California is so damn expensive. And nobody really wants to tackle that whole issue. Um, so it's a whole factor of things. And they think like if they just kind of raise it, oh, if we raise it 70 cents, who's not to say in six months, they don't go, we need another 70 cents or we need another dollar.

[00:47:42] Like it's just, this all adds up at the end of the day and raising it $4 overnight is a huge, huge increase. Especially for restaurants that live on razor thin margins. Yeah. Uh, I know that everyone thinks that like KFC, you know, just because it's KFC, they're swimming in money like Scrooge McDuck. But a lot of these people are franchisees. They're like independent owners who have to run these restaurants on their own with the help of KFC. But it's not like at the end of the day, KFC is bailing them out or anything like that.

[00:48:12] You fail, you fail. Um, so I will, it's going to be interesting to see if they go forward with it. I would imagine they're probably going to move forward with it. Sadly. Yeah, I'm sure. Cause they're going to say, well, it's 70 cents. Why do you care about 70 cents? It hasn't been a year since the $4 raise, but. And weren't we just talking about, I feel like we were just talking about last year. Well, last year they were trying to pass. Is it prop 32?

[00:48:41] I think it was, uh, where they were going to raise the minimum wage across the board to $18, which actually got voted down. So. And what happened with the, for the healthcare workers, they were, they were trying to raise that too. And then I think they decided financially it wasn't, wasn't going to be viable yet or something like that. I don't remember.

[00:49:08] I don't think that one passed, but yeah, it felt like they were, they raised their rent or they raised them in a wage and then they raised it again pretty, or they were asking to raise again pretty quickly after that. Um, I mean the bottom line is businesses will figure out ways to cut costs and it doesn't matter how much you raise. They're going to raise minimum wage. Minimal wage, even in a state like California, that is so obsessed with controlling every aspect of the economy.

[00:49:37] They're going to figure out a way to save money and make a profit. I'm sorry. That's just the way, cause that is the incentive and the nature of business is they're going to figure out how to cut costs and make profit. And when you raise the cost of labor, they're going to figure out how to cut the cost on labor or they're going to raise prices elsewhere, which hurts people who may need to actually go buy fast food to survive, making thus things more expensive in California or the ultimate,

[00:50:05] you know, fail safe is they just leave. They just leave California and go, it's too expensive. We can't have, we can't operate restaurants here. It's just too damn expensive and they keep raising the minimum wage. Every time you turn around, they're raising the minimum wage. Um, I, I, I wouldn't be surprised by the next couple of years, they're going to be like, we need $25 minimum wage for fast food. And why is it only just fast food workers? Why all of a sudden just this obsession with fast food workers is, um, also kind of head

[00:50:35] scratching to me. I understand it's probably unions have a certain demographic that they're trying to cater to, but it is kind of weird that it's just fast food workers. I almost like that's offensive. Like, like they're, they're implying that fast food workers are, are like not going to get ahead in life and that they're low life is what I feel like. Like we need it. We need to cater to these lower level people.

[00:51:02] And we discussed, you know, fast food was kind of like, that was, those were our jobs in high school. That's, you know, like, and we weren't, we knew that we were never going to work full time forever at a fast food restaurant. It was, those were like the jobs for the teens. And then, you know, we were getting our few hours a week and we were going to graduate high school and go on to higher education. And, you know, you're, you're a lawyer now.

[00:51:26] I stay at home mom, but, um, it's, I'm sure that there was nothing in you that was like, like, I worked at a frozen yogurt shop when I was in high school, when I was 16 and I loved it, but it wasn't like, this is my life and this is my career. And here's where I plan to be. It was very short term thing, you know, and I made minimum wage and I went to school and that was that. And like, I've talked about before.

[00:51:52] So I have, uh, my 17 year old daughter, she wants to work. Like she genuinely wants to work and nobody's hiring 17 year olds in fast food. Like it's so then maybe when she's 18, she'll have a shot at it and they want job experience. And it's just like, well, nobody hired me because fast food, minimum wage. They're like, why would they want to pay me $20 an hour? So now that's, that's an excellent point that it is kind of insulting that people who are

[00:52:22] in fast food will never do anything else, but work fast food. When in reality, I feel like it is kind of a transitory or entry level job that most people just have. Like, it's just like, Hey, can you lift this bucket and like throw fries in a fryer? It's like, okay, great. You are useful labor that I can use in this fast food place. Cause it's, it's skills that are easily trainable. Um, it's skill.

[00:52:48] It's a job that requires some sort of, I would say youth and vigor because you're on your feet and it's a lot of work and it's hot and it's a lot of physical manual labor. Um, but I don't, yeah, you're right. I don't think anybody goes into in and out and goes, this is it. I'm going to be the guy who flips the burgers. They might, I mean, work your way up to management. People. But yeah, but I think that that's different because you're not going to go in there and be like, this is my life.

[00:53:18] I'm going to flip burgers from now until I'm retired. Like, I think if you're going in to fast food and you get promoted to manager and you're like, oh, there's maybe there's a career path here. And I go from manager to regional manager or something like that. Like now you're in the corporate structure of in and out. And then we're not talking about minimum wage anymore. And you're not really a fast food worker working for minimum wage. We're, we're talking about jobs that like, I don't want to go down the rabbit hole of

[00:53:48] like the whole argument that minimum wage actually hurts people who, because it's not necessarily a ladder. It's more like a way to stop people from negotiating what the price of their labor should be and entering into contracts. That's a whole anarcho-capitalist kind of ideal about minimum wage actually hurts workers because all of an underground, underground. Yeah. Deep underground, like anarcho, like this is a, I think it's like a Murray Rothbard idea of like, is it Murray Rothbard or Ludwig von Mises?

[00:54:17] Either one of those guys. Basically the idea is like minimum wage hurts people like teens and no and low, lower income and those who are, who need help because instead of being like your daughter is a perfect example of they can't just go in and negotiate. I want to work. I don't care. I just want to get a job so I can make some extra spending money. Like the business should be able to go, okay, I'll pay you $10 an hour. Your daughter goes, great.

[00:54:47] I'm going to voluntarily enter into this idea, this contract of employment to work for X company, whether it's in and out or wherever. And that's it. And then you can voluntarily leave if you want. And then they can voluntarily enter into another contract. But that idea of like negotiating wages and being free to do that goes against the idea of a minimal wage that is imposed that is really high because now people like your daughter

[00:55:15] or maybe those who are disenfranchised, they don't get those jobs anymore because businesses are going to look at them and go, we're not paying you $20 an hour. Sorry, we want someone else who we think is worth $20 an hour. It's all about a value assessment in terms of minimum wage. But that's not really the point of tonight's episode is to talk about this anarcho-capitalist kind of idea of minimum wage, which if you're into it, I would recommend go looking up like

[00:55:42] the idea that minimum wage actually hurts and it's not helpful to anybody. So any thoughts? Well, I'm going to, even though that's not the point of tonight's, I'm going to piggyback on that because it, it just, it could, our argument is constantly like the private sector can do so much more than the government. So yeah, the government comes in and I understand the point of minimum wage, but somebody doesn't

[00:56:10] have to like, if they're like, oh, no minimum, if, if minimum wage ceases to exist and you have two fast food places right next door to each other. And this one's like, I'm going to pay you $2 an hour. And this one's like, I'm going to pay you $3 an hour. Everyone's going to want jobs at the $3 an hour one. Of course, that's going to force the second one to then raise their job wage, you know, and so on and so forth. And even going back to the high-speed rail to nowhere, there was like a private group that

[00:56:40] they built one in California to Nevada or something like that. And they were able to do it right in a matter of years, as much smaller budget. It's like every time the government wants to intervene on all these things and they don't seem to understand economics, they just mess it up for everybody. They don't think about the domino effect and they just think about the here and now when this looks good and this sounds good and sure, it does look good and sound good. I mean, shoot, $20 an hour.

[00:57:06] I'm going to go work part-time just to like afford to remodel a bathroom or something, you know, earn a trip and then quit and go on my trip, whatever. But yeah, people are losing their hours. People have lost jobs. People are losing their hours. The minimum wage increase seems to have hurt their paycheck. And the government intervening constantly on everything.

[00:57:35] And then suddenly where they need to intervene, like with Prop 36, they are like, I don't know where you guys figured out. I don't know how we're going to do this. It's what you wanted. Yeah. You didn't really think about this. No, you, I think you said it better than I did, which is if you got rid of the minimum wage, hypothetically, we live in a world where you wave a wand and go, there's no more minimum wage. Everyone seems to be like, oh, if there's no minimum wage, then corporations will pay like, you know, dirt wage, cheap labor.

[00:58:05] And it's like, no, because there's a certain people know how much they have to live on and they can go, okay, I need to make this much per hour. Therefore, I'm only going to look for jobs that pay me this much per hour. They're not going to be forced into working for five cents. Like they always make this, this argument absurdum of like, oh, well, if you get rid of minimum wage, then people will be paid like a dollar an hour. It's like, and no one will work there.

[00:58:32] No one will work at a place that's a dollar an hour. Like if you are that person who wants to work for a dollar an hour, I don't know what to tell you. Like, then don't complain that you're getting paid a dollar an hour. Like the idea is you want to attract good talent. You'll pay what it is. I mean, look at it in a different way, not minimum wage. Now you got me all riled up about this because this is like, this is stuff that I like nerd out about that.

[00:59:01] I really like talking about like, look at it a different way, not minimum wage. Look at it like, like high, I guess you could say higher income individuals, right? Like there's, there's two different big businesses and you know, let's say for example, we'll use my industry law firms, right? We'll say like law firm a pays starting associates 150 a year. Law firm B pays starting associates $200,000 a year.

[00:59:31] Well, most people, most of starting out associates are going to go, well, let me go apply at $200,000 firm. And if they get that job and all the good talent is going over there, then guess what? The other law firm paying 150 a year. Now all of a sudden it has to go, well, we're not attracting any talent and we need to stay in business because we need people. Therefore we have to raise our wages to attract good people. And that's the same on the minimum wage level too, which is okay.

[01:00:00] We need people who are going to show up who are good workers. We need people who are going to, you know, be on time, be on schedule. Maybe they work hard. Maybe they do work hard to become the regional manager or the manager of the shop, but you can't do that when you, you artificially impose a minimum wage. And now you have 50 employees all working 15 hours a week. Like what if there's one really good employee that you like? And you're like, Hey, I really like this employee. They, they have a future.

[01:00:29] Maybe they want to be a manager or assistant manager. Well, sorry, you can't give them more hours because it's $20 an hour and I can't afford to give you more hours. So you block that person's ability to move up at all. And I guess we go back to your point of like, now we've forced people to stay in these low paying minimum wage jobs. Like that's the assumption. They have to stay in this job. There is no room for going up. You have to be able to live on this.

[01:00:58] And I just don't think that's the right way to look at it. It is, you know, companies have to compete for labor just like they have to compete for customers. So absolutely. Um, all right. One day maybe we'll nerd out on like laissez-faire economics and anarcho-capitalism, but today is not the day. Um, California could definitely use a little bit of lessons on that stuff. All right. Last thing for today. And I'll say, this is kind of like, we got a bonus cringe moment. Okay.

[01:01:30] Oh, I was just checking the notes. Cause I'm like, don't we have another topic? Yes. Now I know. Now I know what we're talking about. Um, Gavin Newsom, you know, Los Angeles on fire. Talking about Gavin Newsom. No, uh, Gavin Newsom, uh, Los Angeles is on fire. Um, you know, crime, still a big problem all over the state. Uh, you know, a whole bunch of issues going on that he's not tackling.

[01:01:57] Instead, he's tackling the most important thing, which is podcasting. Um, he wants, Hey, we, we like podcasting. We do, but we're also not the governor of the fifth largest economy in the world. We don't have other responsibilities. Um, so this past week, Gavin Newsom released news that he is going to be starting a new podcast called. This is Gavin Newsom.

[01:02:24] Now, if you say, if it seems like deja vu, it sort of is deja vu because Gavin Newsom did have a podcast. It was called politicking with a K, which he was promoting for a little bit. I believe that's still in existence. Like, I don't think he's, I don't think he's quitting. He's not off politicking. So now he has two pod. He could potentially be doing two podcasts. Okay. Most governors don't have time to do one podcast.

[01:02:52] Uh, Gavin Newsom has time to do two podcasts potentially. Um, maybe he thought the politicking got a little too edgy with Marshawn Lynch on that, on that podcast. Who knows? But he decided I'm going to start a new podcast and, uh, we'll take a quick look at his promo video. We need to change the conversation. And that's why I'm launching a new podcast. And this is going to be anything but the ordinary politician podcast.

[01:03:20] I'm going to be talking to people directly that I disagree with as well as people I look up to, but more important than anything else. I'll be talking directly with you, the listener, real conversations. What's going on with the cost of eggs? What are the impacts real impacts to you around tariffs? What power does an executive order really have? And what's really going on inside of Doge? Look, there's an onslaught of information that we take in.

[01:03:46] So let's take it to the sources without the typical political mumbo jumbo. In the first few weeks, we're going to be sitting down with some of the biggest leaders and architects in the mega movement. This is Gavin Newsom. Okay. I'm going to back up from the mic because I want to say this so that everyone can hear it, but I don't want to blow everyone's ears out. Do your freaking job. Thank you. That was my thought on that.

[01:04:17] Um, I don't know what to say at this point. Like we have so many problems in California and let's start another podcast. Cause why not? Because got to run for president sooner or later, you know, sorry, LA burned to the ground and is completely decimated and no one knows how to fix it. I got to run for president in two years. Sorry, guys. Got to start this podcast.

[01:04:47] Um, a couple of things about that video that I, uh, kind of stuck out to me. First off, uh, he did the, the shoulders again, did the, he did the shoulders when he started off. Gavin Newsom. That's Gavin Newsom and the, the clear shoulders that he loves to do. Um, his whole thing about this won't be your typical podcast full of political mumbo jumbo.

[01:05:14] Sir, I believe you have a doctorate in political mumbo jumbo. You are the king of mumbo jumbo. I don't think anyone's better at doing word salad mumbo jumbo than you are. Like you are the, I will hand it to you. You know how to say stuff that sounds really smart, but doesn't mean anything. So you are very good at, uh, the other thing is he's going to be sitting down with the architects

[01:05:43] the architects of the MAGA movement in the upcoming. And I'm curious to see who he got as architects of the MAGA movement. I didn't even know there were architects of the MAGA movement. We'll find out. It'll be a fun. We're going to find out who these architects of the MAGA movement are. Um, what are your thoughts on Gavin Newsom's new podcast? Okay. Look, I, I'm going to trip up myself. You're so, try to stay with me.

[01:06:12] I'm going to try to stay with myself. I apologize. Um, okay. So we like threw out a few topics and then he's like, we're going to get to the sources and I want to really like, who are the sources? What are the sources? That's whatever. Um, when he says, this isn't going to be your typical politician podcast. How many he's, he's the governor of California. He should be very busy.

[01:06:42] How many political podcasts is he listening to, um, or politician podcasts? My gosh. Um, momo jumbo, real conversations. I don't think Gavin actually knows how to have real conversations at this point. Now I have never sat down with him one-on-one and had a real conversation. So maybe I'm very wrong. Maybe, you know, he'd be a totally different Gavin Newsom. But as you said, he's the king of mumbo jumbo. He basically invented it. He wrote the book on it. Don't read it. You won't understand it.

[01:07:11] It won't make any sense. It's just a lot of words, but. It's full of mumbo jumbo. I'll see myself out of that. Um, so we know he wants to run in 2028 for president. Like, we know this, um, we know he had wanted to run when he knew that Biden would be replaced. And I think that's why he started this politic and podcast in July of last year. I think he was trying to be relatable.

[01:07:41] Like, oh, look at me. You could totally grab a beer with me. I'm, I'm cool. I'm down to earth. I'm fun. I don't know. I, you and I talked about how we used to see that pushed on Instagram all the time. And we haven't seen it lately. And I didn't mute it, but he's still doing it. I looked it up there. There was like an episode just dropped a couple of weeks ago and there's another one coming. Um, so he's, he's still doing that. Um, and that's like a three hour conversation where they bring another guest and talk about, I don't know.

[01:08:09] Cause I listened to one episode and it was too much mumbo jumbo for me. So I checked out. But, um, now this new one. Yeah. I would, I want to talk to him. I have been very clear about that as much as I think this is so ridiculous and so cringe. I'm like, Hey, if you're going to do this, I, I have, I have tweeted, I have Instagrammed, I have tagged. I've been like, we want to come on. We have a California political podcast. Talk to us. We disagree with you for the most part.

[01:08:39] 99.9% of the time. Like we would come on our podcaster, bring us on. We will gladly sit down and do this. I mean, since he's going to do it, but obviously it's his way of staying politically active. Um, we are in March now. I can't believe we're already in March. And last year, do you remember his state of the state speech kept getting delayed for various reasons? The real reason being that there was nothing about California to brag about. So he basically didn't want to do one.

[01:09:08] And then he finally released some weird pre-recorded something or other. And now I'm like, okay, sorry. You can have time for a state of the state. Are you going to just do it on your podcast? Like genuinely wondering how this is going to pan out. Yeah. I will not hold your breath, uh, on that state of the state. It's now March. I don't think he plans on doing a state of the state. Um, because again, there's not really much to brag about. I would imagine he'd want to do a state of the state. I think he'll definitely do one next year.

[01:09:38] He'll do a final state of the state as governor. So he can wrap up everything and then get some good video clips for his presidential run. Um, oh my gosh, it's crazy. I think by this time next year, well, no, by this time, yeah, next year, Gavin Newsom will be like what he'll be on his way out. We'll be about to do the primaries. Right. We figuring out who will be running for governor.

[01:10:05] Uh, well, we do know some people, but we don't know the full field yet. Yeah, it's, um, it's infuriating. And of course he was like resoundingly mocked all over the place about this. I think even the daily show did a thing about it. Like, you know, they made fun of the fact that like, why are you doing a podcast, bro? Like you've got enough on your plate. And now all of a sudden you're doing a podcast. It just, he just does these things. And it's just so obviously clear.

[01:10:32] Like governor is just a stepping stone on the way to something else. Most people would be absolutely astounded that they made it to be the governor of California. And like, just be proud of the fact that they made it to be governor of California. But as with a lot of politicians in California, they are always on their way up and out. So they just don't care about like their lasting impact.

[01:10:57] We see that so much with people who start off as mayors, like, and then they become city council members or I'm sorry, that's going backwards mayors. And they become assembly members or state senators. And then they move up to state offices. And then maybe they move up to be governor. And then they're always like, well, I can jump from that to the next brass ring, which is president. Although we haven't had a, the last president to be elected from California was a Republican.

[01:11:25] So I don't think you're going to win the presidency running as a Democrat from California. But it is, that's Gavin Newsom's whole career is he's just reaching for the next thing. And as long as he can create content and videos and stuff that makes him look really, really in his mind, really cool for those presidential ads, he's going to do it.

[01:11:50] And I guess these videos, I don't know how long he's going to do this podcast or how often this podcast is going to come out. I'm not going to lie when his first one does come out because it's, it's just him. He's not like politic and he was part of a panel of people. So he wasn't the main focus. And this one, he is the main focus. I guess he's the host. Like he has to actually host his own podcast. This is Gavin Newsom. This is Gavin. I mean, his name is the title. Not California.

[01:12:21] Yeah. And why name it? This is Gavin Newsom. If you want to talk about, if you want to talk about all these other things, why are you calling it? This is Gavin Newsom. It sounds like you just want to talk about yourself. Like, okay, we're going to, this is going to talk about Gavin Newsom. I don't know, but obviously it's, it's infuriating. I think this is probably the cringe moment of the week is a Newsom starting his podcast. And I'm not going to, like I said, I'm not going to lie.

[01:12:50] I'm going to listen to the first episode. You guys, we might can't, can't promise anything. We might be bringing you lots of, this is Gavin Newsom content. Just depends on how this goes. It might provide a lot of cringe moments of the week for us, which we can, we can hopefully look forward. We might have to do a full, when he drops his first episode, if it's a reasonable amount of time, we may have to do a full breakdown and fact check of his first episode. We might be doing three episodes a week. Not really.

[01:13:18] It'll just turn into California Underground reacting to Gavin Newsom. We just watch it. We're with pause. We're like, all right, let's break this down. Let's break down this. Anyway, so, you know, can't find money for Prop 36, but got time for podcasts. So any other thoughts on Gavin Newsom? Maybe he can have advertising and he'll like fund Proposition 36 through advertising. Maybe he'll be like every person who listens helps fund Prop 36. Who knows?

[01:13:48] More like we're funding his future presidential run. Absolutely going to go to his campaign. Definitely going to go to one of his committees that will then shuffle it right over to him once he announces in 2027. I keep getting my ears mixed up because he's done with governor in 2026. And then 2027. So he'll have a gap year. Well, he'll actually, it'll be perfect timing for Gavin Newsom. Because 2026 will end.

[01:14:14] And then right after, usually it's around January, February, people start announcing for president. So it'll actually be perfect timing. He'll step down as governor and then be ready to go for president. And I wonder if he'll still do his podcast when he's out on the road running for president. I don't think so. But any other final thoughts about Gavin Newsom in this podcast? Yeah, this podcast. Exactly. No, no, I'll stop talking about Gavin Newsom on this podcast. This episode. This episode.

[01:14:44] Okay. Episode. All right. That's it for tonight's episode. Thank you, everyone, for tuning in. Make sure to tune in on Tuesday's live episode. We have a special guest, Keeley, from America on one, which is really interesting. We're kind of continuing that Point Reyes conversation. She knows way more about Point Reyes. So remember how last week we were trying to get through it as best as we could with the information we had? Mumbo jumbo.

[01:15:13] A lot of mumbo jumbo on our, I'll admit, it was a lot of mumbo jumbo on our part because we were trying to figure out what the heck is going on here. But she knows way more about it. So I reached out to her. She's going to come on the podcast. She's going to tell us all about what's going on in Point Reyes, as well as like other parts of California in terms of like water usage and illegal grows and stuff like that. Like agriculture in California is really, really in trouble. You know, if Gavin Newsom ever says he cares about farmers in California on his podcast, you'll know the real facts.

[01:15:42] So make sure to tune in live on Tuesday night. With that said, make sure you share, subscribe, like, review, comment. All that stuff helps with the algorithm, helps with people find us. And the best thing that you can do to support this show that is 100% free is share it with somebody who you think would enjoy it. And we'll see you on the next one. Later.

[01:16:14] Thank you for listening to another episode of California Underground. If you like what you heard, remember to subscribe, like and review it and follow California Underground on social media for updates as to when new episodes are available.