They have to get this right for America to have a real chance
38:16 Share

I was thinking about yesterday, we were talking about, you asked me, is that a thing floating around the internet now? People ask about Nuremberg trials, Nuremberg-style trials. It's something a guy I read has written about, how there needs to be the Nuremberg 2.0 for COVID. Yeah. It's a little bit of a difficult one because on one hand, it seems so completely vindictive.

and petty and kind of distraction from the point. And we were talking about yesterday, in many respects, there's a lot of things that you could sort of point to and say, well, actually, because of this, maybe you wouldn't have had, you know, some of the ideological victories and so forth that we've had here, like recently, were it not for the megalomania of guys like Tony Fauci, whatever. But right. And after we talked about it, I was thinking one of the really realistically, like one of the issues is,

I think deep thoughts all the time about how do you fix America? I wake up at night thinking about it. My brain is constantly coming up with ideas and thoughts. I analyze these things. How do you really fix this? Because there's opportunity right now, and that's it. If you don't get this right and you're not able to land that plane, the longer-term outcome is just not good. There's too many...

a $36 trillion debt, the interest payments that keep spiraling out of control, things we talk about a lot. You have literally right now is a very, very small limited window of opportunity to fix this. And if you fix it, what are the things that you have to do? And there's some of the big things, but I think one of the issues, and I always look at root causes. People say, well, what's the problem? So deficit spending. Well, deficit spending is not really a root cause. That's not really the reason. The deficit spending is sort of a symptom

And it's a symptom of, in a way, kind of incompetence. It's a symptom of an inability to realistically appraise the situation, identify a problem, and make rational, grown-up decisions, which every normal people have to do every single day and say, I'm going to do this, but because of that, I can't do that. Whether it's something we buy, whether it's a way we spend our time, whether it's a way we treat our children, whatever it is, it's all about trade-offs.

And in government, there's no sense of trade-offs. And I think part of it is because there's just never any accountability. So it takes you back to the idea of like, should there be Nuremberg-style trials for COVID? Number one, I would say, why do we single out COVID in terms of all the spectacular failures, all the spectacular failures that there have been in government? And there have been a lot. There have been so many.

just recently you know but you know is that is that petty is that vindictive is it better that we just move on but at the same time i think you don't actually one of the problems that you have to solve is the culture in government itself and we talked about that um you and i wrote about that um when we're talking about the department of labor

And I told you, like, I had that, I was doing the research on that. I found out like, I mean, this is like, this is the department of labor's, um, bureau of labor statistics has a budget of almost a billion dollars, about a quarter, $250 million. They spend, it's like $253 million. Don't, don't quote me exactly. It's like $253 million just on the fricking unemployment report. I think they call it officially is the unemployment situation. Um,

And so the situation costs taxpayers $250 million, which ADP, a private company, puts out for free. And it's that sort of thing that's like there's just no – nobody looks at it and says, hey, geez, should we even be doing that? Should we be pissing away $250 million of taxpayer money on something that we can get for free? It just doesn't really make any sense. But there's also that element of all these government officials –

who have no concept of what their original mission is to support the taxpayers, not the other way around. And at the political level, where they just keep shuffling money out the door and there's just never any accountability. And it's that vacuum of accountability

I think it's such a huge part of the problem is because nobody's ever held accountable. They can be wrong and wrong and wrong again. And Congress has a, I mean, the incumbent wins like 90% of the time. It varies election to election, but I mean, it's at least high 80s up to like mid 90% of the time, the incumbent wins. And so- That was one of those things that they're talking about is actually trying to get a constitutional amendment or term limits for Congress. I think that would be one of the greatest things that could ever happen in the U.S.,

I also look at it and say, fat fucking chance of that ever happening. Because in that process-- - Pass by Congress. - Right, exactly. You're asking people to basically negotiate against themselves and say, well, we don't wanna have our, we don't wanna stay. You're asking us whether or not we wanna stay in Congress for the rest of our lives. Do you just honestly, anybody really think that Nancy Pelosi is gonna go and say, yeah, sure, I'm all for term limits? Dude, there's just no chance.

There's no chance. Well, and it's a constitutional amendment. So the bar to passing it, it's what is it, two thirds of Congress? And then it goes to the states, three quarters of the states. And then the states have to do it. And, you know, and then it's like, then you got to get every state has its own individual way to put something on the ballot. And some of that stuff is going to have to pass through state legislatures, which might look at, oh, geez, this is going to affect us too. So that's a really, really, really high hurdle. But a much lower hurdle is

It's just finding a way to actually hold people accountable. How are normal people held accountable? If somebody works for a business and they screw up constantly over and over and over again, they're going to be fired. That's how people are held accountable. Government employees...

oftentimes don't have that level of accountability. A lot of people don't realize really just how hard it is to fire somebody who works for the government. It is fucking impossible. It is so hard. Is this a distinction between firing and laying off? Because if you're going to lay off a whole bunch of people versus firing an individual for wrongdoing, that's a totally different process, right?

You can lay off people. And I think this is one of the things that, that Ramaswamy was talking about that he said, Hey, you know, it's not personal. I mean, what was it? What was it? I mean, it's probably just half kidding when he's like, if your social security number starts with an odd member, you're gone. Yeah. I would prefer to actually have the worst people fired as opposed to just doing it. Right. Exactly. If you go, yeah, that's, that's the thing. It's like,

a lot of companies do that. I mean, there's hardly any organization that's at least a medium-sized business. You know what I mean? If you have, let's say, 100 employees that you can't cut

At least 5%, if not, and the bigger the organization, the bigger you can go. I mean, there's nobody that can say like, you know, certainly Google and Facebook, these guys can't cut 10% of their- Twitter, Elon. Right, exactly. I mean, right, exactly. You just go, you go, you're gone. And a lot of that has got to, especially in government, has got to be based on competence. It's got to be based on competence. And the government is the worst. It's the worst. And I saw this, man, this was, I mean,

When I was a, I mean, when I was an officer, I mean, I mean, this goes back almost a quarter of a century now. I mean, in the military, like you just, I mean, there are, the military is like a, is a microcosm of American society and you've got some really, really amazing people.

And if you've got some hardcore shit bags and, and any, any military veteran watching this is to be like, yeah, that's true. And if you're not, if you're a military veteran and you're not saying, yeah, that's true. You were the shit. I mean, that's, that's the rule of thumb. You know, it's the old poker thing. Like Buffett talks about, you know, if you sit in the poker game for like an hour and you haven't figured out who the Patsy is, you're the Patsy. If you don't know who the shit bag was in your unit, it was you. Right. And so the it's, it's like every, every,

every commander, every first sergeant, every platoon sergeant, every squad leader has always struggled with this. It's like, how do you deal with a shit bag? And the thing about the shit bags are

They're the ones who always know, and this is with the civilian workforce within government as well. They're the ones who know every little HR regulation that exists. They know the machinations of the system and how to exploit and how to, Oh, if I do this and I show up and I say, Oh, I have the sniffles and not now I can't get fired for the next 15 years. And all these sorts of things like they know the rules of the bureaucracy and how to use the rules of the bureaucracy to protect themselves and

And it's at the point now where, and this is actually a thing that a lot of career bureaucrats, especially like after they leave and then they start talking honestly about it, they will say,

The easiest way to get rid of somebody, if you've got a bad apple in your unit, your agency, your organization is to promote them. Yeah. Because you can't get rid of them. You can't get rid of them. It's impossible to get rid of them. That's what we saw at the FDIC as well. When that big report came out with Marty Grunberg. Grunberg, yeah. And it said, yeah, and all the people, it was like sexual harassment, racism, blatant homophobia, all the things that the left says they care about.

And he was promoting them, transferring them to other places. Oh, it's not even it's not even the left pretends to care about it. It's they claim that that's the hill they're going to die on. And now all of a sudden you've got this guy who's who's, you know, a close, you know, close dude to the president.

That now, I mean, and like this was, and if you're watching this and you're like, what did they talk about? This is a report that came out. This is December 4th, 2024 recording. So this came out earlier this year in 2024, and it was the Wall Street Journal blew this story on the FDIC, which is supposed to be

the premier banking regulator in the United States. And the guy that runs this agency, Marty Grunberg, that is just, to put it politely, he's a horrible piece of shit, is the most polite way that you could possibly say about this person. He is lower than scum, whatever comes out of the swamp. This guy is worse than all of that.

He makes, we poke fun a lot about this lady, Lena Kahn, we call her Genghis Kahn, because she's just on a war path to conquer capitalism and just destroy all business and commerce ahead of her. And she's done a pretty hell of a good job at that. Grunberg makes her look like Mother Teresa. This guy is such a scumbag. And it's like he has created this culture within the organization that

of like you said like racism homophobia and you know not to mention just not doing your job well it's not like they missed anything while he was in charge it's not like one of the big banks in america like like went bust like on this guy's watch there's a severe bank where it's not like anything actually bad happened while this is going on and it was one of these things it was like it was like it was like a frat party man it was like it was one of these things they own a hotel they

They own a hotel in Washington, D.C. And to throw up off of the roof was a rite of passage for the employees of the FDIC. You had to get so hardcore shit-faced that you had to go and throw up off the roof of this. What about the people that were just walking down the street minding their own business? Okay.

But can you think of a more like boring organization? Right. It's like, these are what should be a more safeguarding. Yeah. Right. It should be boring, but there's, they're safeguarding the financial system supposedly of the United States of America and that they're hardcore binge drinking. They're sending, you know, dick pics to their, their female employees, sexually harassing all of them. Oh, if you don't like my dick pic, I'm not going to promote you. But if you're a shit bag, we are going to promote you because we don't like this guy. So we're going to, we're going to send them off to become the head of the,

the Kansas City office, whatever. This is the sort of culture and it's like, anybody wants to think that this is, oh, this is an isolated incident when the FDIC, don't be so naive. This is how the culture in government works. And it's all about me. It's all about us. We're here for us. Like we're going to extract, we're going to exploit, we're going to take advantage in every possible way we can.

And, you know, like the taxpayers are paying for it. And it's and there's not there's no there's no sense of responsibility for it because it's just such an enormous, gigantic pot. And in many respects, it does become a little bit of game theory. If if if I'm a if I'm like the one responsible budget head.

And I'm going to say, you know what, I got this budget. I'm in charge of the BLS and I'm getting a billion dollars a year. I was like Ron Paul. Ron Paul used to famously return a portion of his budget every year he got a budget for his congressional office. He used to return a portion of it to the Treasury because that's what a responsible person does. He says, here's my budget. I'm not going to use all of it. So in a normal company, that would be considered retained earnings. But in the government, this gets returned to the Treasury.

If you're an agency head and you say, oh, they gave me a billion-dollar budget, but I only needed $300 million. I only needed a third of it because I'm such a hardcore cost-cutter. And next year, you only get $300 million. It's like that $700 million, where does that go? It's just going to go to the guy down the street. It's going to go to Marty Grunberg for more dick-pick stripper booze parties.

is where it's going to go. Like that money is not going to get saved. It's going to get spent. And it makes it really hard. There's no incentive. Not only there's, there's no, there's no disincentive for incompetence. There's no incentive to be competent or responsible. If you're, if you're competent. I mean, you can believe like a number of stories I hear, but like for people that, I mean, like the, the, the federal government is all about all of its DEI bullshit.

And so that's, you know, they, a lot of like promotions they do based on that, not based on competence. God forbid, we actually promote people based on confidence and competence. It's all about this DEI nonsense rather than hiring the competent people. So competence doesn't get you promoted. Incompetence quite often will get you promoted.

And if you're an agency head and you're saving money, there's no incentive to do so because all you're going to see is your budget is going to get cut. So then if you actually want to just say, oh, like here's some money we could use and invest that in something to make it more efficient, to make my office better, to do all these different things. Well, then you're not going to see that money. But Marty Broomberg is because, you know, he's got to go through some wild, you know, binge sex party, whatever, off the roof of the hotel. And there's just no incentive. And so it just takes back this idea of like,

To call, anytime you bring up like some historical metaphor from World War II, you always got to kind of step back and go, okay, come on. I mean, it's like every time they went and called Trump a Nazi, anybody with any grasp of history has got to go, oh my God, you people, he's a Nazi. He's a Nazi. And they just kept repeating this on CNBC or not CNBC, MSNBC and CNN, all this. It's like, oh my God, like,

I think you and I wrote about this. I mean, it was like, who's the, who exactly is the Nazi? It's like, well, first of all, the Nazis hated the Jews. That pretty much sounds like a thing left right now and not on the right. Who are the, who are the guys at universities that are covering their heads with the, what do you call it? The, the, the, um,

Yeah. Those things, the kafir, whatever, yeah, whatever those things are called, kafir, yeah, like it ain't the young Republicans. Yeah. When has the guy doing the censorship ever been the good guy in history? Has censorship ever been the right thing to have done? Yeah, literally never. But then they even, they do the double speak and they flip that around and they pretend that the Republicans are the ones doing the censorship because they're banning people

banning books in schools and what they're really doing is removing pornography from elementary school libraries where they're talking about these you know the the gay books yeah exactly so it's it's it's like there was a i mean i've seen online yeah yeah there's like famous ones there's like graphically describing you know some teenage boy and engaged in oral sex with the

I don't know, some teachers. I mean, it was Jesus Christ. What is this doing in a school? Yeah. And parents will go to these meetings and start reading the books and they're like, stop, this is inappropriate. And they're like, yeah, that's the point. Like if I can't read this book in this meeting, but so it's actually, this kind of brings it down to every single level where there's like just this, none of this accountability because they, they, it's, it's the same thing.

Yeah. And so how do you fix that, right? How do you fix this vacuum of accountability that

And again, like to call it a Nuremberg trial is a little bit on the sensational side, just like going and calling people on the right Nazis when in fact, you know, you look at sort of censorship, the central planning that was a staple in the Nazi regime, you know, the hatred of the Jews and all these sorts of things. It's like the ideological purity that somebody would have to have before being excommunicated or worse, all these sorts of things that are actually now like major tenants of the left. But,

But yeah, forget about all that. The idea of having accountability, in some respects, has to become part of the government if there's going to be any fix to it at all. And the thing is that they focus on sort of the most sensational figureheads. It's like, let's haul Fauci up in front of the, you know, have a Nuremberg trial for Tony Fauci. And as much as I, and we talked about this last time, it's like, you know, Robert Malone told me,

Fauci is not the problem. He's the symptom of the problem. The problem is the system where people like Fauci get to exist. But Fauci is one guy. And, you know, Francis Collins and all that, you know, Michelle Walensky and all those types of people who didn't have the power that nobody ever gave the power.

NIH or the, you know, NIAID or CDC or anything like any of the powers that they claim to have. Nobody ever made Tony and Tony Fauci is not my doctor. He's not your doctor. Nobody ever anointed him with this authority to do all these things and have the moral high ground to speak for the institution of science, all sorts of stuff.

But they're, you know, a handful of leaders at the top. And sure, like those guys need to be held accountable, but it's also, you've got to have a modification to the system that's in place where the people that are like the, it's actually far more important. It's like the middling bureaucrats, they're in the system clogging it up. It's like, if they're not a, you know, it's not even America first, it's like taxpayer first. If you're not a taxpayer first person,

kind of attitude, you don't have a taxpayer first attitude, you have to go. You have to go. You have to get out and return that. I mean, labor is a resource in the economy. I mean, it almost sounds Marxist, but I mean, this is straight up capitalism 101. This is Adam Smith. Labor is one of the four fundamental resources of an economy. And right now, you've got this fundamental resource that's actually being used to destroy productivity

return that to the marketplace. Let that actually be used for some productive purpose rather than a destructive purpose. And until you have a system in place where there actually is some system of accountability, so I wouldn't say...

Nuremberg trials. That's just so sensational. It's as sensational as the left. Firing them. Right. And it sounds like revenge and it sounds like whatever, but it's like, you've got to have a system in place. You've got to look at that and say, how do we make sure that we will never again have somebody like Fauci? It's not Fauci. It's somebody like Fauci who gets to say, I and I alone

can do this. I have this authority when you don't and everybody is, you know, and it's like,

I mean, thank God for the Supreme Court that was there at least part of the way to say, no, you can't do that. You can't have these mandates. You can't do these certain things. They actually look at the law. And I've been pushing back on this just invented authority saying more and more rulings saying if Congress didn't expressly tell you this is what you're allowed to do, then you can't just make up 500 pages of regulations that say, you know, Genghis Khan did this on the mergers and acquisitions.

I was just going to say, if people wonder what are you guys talking about, this goes back to 1946. The bureaucratic state

Did not exist for the vast majority of the history of the country. We were talking about this and I, we told our total access members on the last call we did, we said, I said that the best book I've ever read on this, I could not recommend it enough, is by Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote a book that came out just this year, 2024, called Overruled.

And he talks about basically there's too much, there's too many rules in the United States. And he's talked about like in the opening pages, I think he tells this example of how it was like the early, it was like the 1790s and Congress is arguing viciously about postal routes. It's about one of the most boring things you could possibly imagine. And one of the guys comes with a bright idea and he says, why don't we just, why don't we just outsource this and give the authority to the postmaster general and let the postmaster general figure out the postal routes?

And the other guys in Congress were aghast and they said, yeah, sure. While we're at it, why don't we just all go home and let's let the executive branch figure out everything. Why don't we let the executive branch pass the laws while we're at it? Why don't we let them do everything and we'll just go home, you know, and screw off to, you know, back to our, whatever, you know, and to them, it was just, it was unconscionable. They're like, no, our responsibility under the constitution is we set the laws. We make the rules. They carry them out.

Sure, they could advise us. They could give us advice. They could make recommendations. But it's our responsibility to speak very clearly and say, this is what you're supposed to do, executive branch. And it's the president's responsibility to make sure that all of the other underlings in the executive branch actually go and execute that efficiently, effectively, in a cost-effective manner. And if they don't do that, I mean, that's, again, it's like basic business. If you don't do that, if you've got a manager of some department somewhere that isn't doing it right, you fire them.

Or heard, you bring in somebody else. I mean, that's what you're supposed to do. That's what the executive branch is really supposed to do. And it wasn't until the early 20th century that they started deferring to the executive branch saying, oh, well, now if you read a lot of legislation now, it's riddled with the same phrase over and over. The secretary shall defer.

And what they're talking about is, you know, if it's some rule about finance that they're talking about the treasury secretary or some rule about security targets, they're talking about the secretary of Homeland security. She'll have the authority to do this and the other and make certain decisions about, about what it is. And so they, they basically write into the law of this broad authority that

Then later on, what happens is those departments, which then essentially sub down the authority to, you know, they keep giving the authority to a lower and lower and lower level and delegate that authority to some like obscure agency that nobody's ever heard of.

then that agency does something which they call literally making a rule. And there's a process called a rulemaking process. And this process was codified into law, I think in 1946, called the Administrative Procedures Act. And the Administrative Procedures Act, which has been updated a few times, and it basically creates a procedural way in which some no-name executive agency goes and takes one of these broadly written, vaguely written laws and

and creates a rule or a regulation. And the thing about it is those rules and regulations now go on. There's hundreds and hundreds of thousands of these things, but they have the same weight and effect of an actual law as it was passed by Congress, including carrying criminal penalties, fines, and imprisonment. And so basically, the APA, the Administrative Procedures Act,

creates this path where an executive agent, some obscure agency nobody's ever heard of can go, oh, so we're going to create this rule based on some vaguely written law 30, 40 years ago. And based on that vaguely written law 30, 40 years ago, we're going to create a rule and this rule carries criminal penalties. And we, this little executive agency, are going to create this law out of nothing

And there's no congressional debate. There's not really any debate at all. There's actually, there's what they call the formal process and the informal process. Most of them opt for the informal process, which is a super, super fast way to do it.

And they basically just create these rules. And so again, there's just hundreds of thousands. I was actually reading this, I think it was in Gorsuch's book. They're talking about right now, the estimate, this was a couple of years ago. They said there's like 300,000 rules, not laws, rules. And this is in addition to the criminal code, all this 300,000 rules, which carry criminal penalties.

And there's some I was actually research that's for the law for the for the article that I wrote today about Hunter Biden, which we'll get to in a minute. The Hunter Biden thing is we'll talk about that in a minute. But out of these like 300,000, I mean, there's some hilarious ones. So there is an actual one. You haven't seen this yet because I haven't sent it to you. There's one that actually it's it's it's now because of this rule, it's now a crime.

under the laws of the United States to sell swine, to sell basically pork if it smells too much like sex. And I got to pull this up because, no, dude, there's a, there's a, the actual, there's a quote. Hold on. I got to pull this up. This is hilarious. They actually talk about this in the regulation. Hold on one second. This is, this is too good. Okay. So this is in the code of federal regulations, um,

Sorry, Title IX, Section 311.20 to sell, I got my light in the way, sell pork which gives off a pronounced sexual odor. Unless said odor is less than pronounced, in which case it can actually be sold as like a ground up meat product.

Wait, so it's pronounced? Is this like the old Judge Learned Hand thing? I'll know when I see it. I'll know when I see it. What does that smell like? Quote, gives off a pronounced sexual odor.

This is literally what's in there. There's another one that I saw that says, "It's a federal crime to make an unreasonable noise or gesture if a horse passes by you in a national park. This is punishable by up to six months in prison according to Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 2.16, as well as Title 18 of U.S. Code, Section 865A." These are rules.

that these executive agencies just made up. They made up these rules to go, oh, well, based on some law that was written, you know, maybe even 200 years ago. I mean, they could go back to the beginning of the nation and say, there's this law that was passed. It was vaguely written. Therefore, we're relying on this vague language to create a rule. And that rule carries fines and penalties and imprisonment. And so, you know, so these guys that are running that bureaucracy

So you have a bunch of people, and to paraphrase Donald Trump, some of them are very nice people. Some of them are very smart, very dedicated, patriotic, competent people, and a lot of them are not. Well, everybody knows that if you want to find that easy, cushy job that you can't get fired from, become a government employee. That's a well-known thing that everybody says if you –

Yeah. Like, man, you really made it, you know, you work for the government's like, you get that healthcare, you get that pension, you get all the, you get all those benefits, you get a bazillion holidays, you got all these things, you know, Hey, and not to mention from time to time, the government's going to shut down. There's going to be some debt ceiling showdown and you don't have to show up to work for 30 days. And you know, maybe you don't get paid for that 30 days, but then as soon as they pass the law, they're going to go and give you all the back payment you're owed. So you're not actually out any money. You know, I mean, it's, it's,

It's crazy. Oh, by the way, it's also a very well-paying job. It's a very well-paying job. I mean, you look at the GSA schedules and stuff. I mean, you get paid very well. It's a good deal. And to bring it back to your original point, there's no justifying that money. The $700, $800 billion a year – no, actually, it's a million in this case, the Bureau of Labor. $800 million a year that they spend.

They don't have to justify that. They put it, like you said, they put out a couple of reports. That's an enormous amount of money. And the number of things that that could be doing is just not even thought about. It's just like, including nothing, including nothing. They don't have to justify taking that money from the taxpayers. And in the beginning of this country, they were supposed to justify like hardcore justify every cent that they wanted to take. They just fought a revolution over it.

Yeah, Vivek Ramaswamy actually had this idea. And it's actually one of the best ideas I've heard. It's a simple idea called zero base budgeting. He said every agency, every department, your annual budget, what they do normally is they start from last year's budget and they go up from there. And that's why the deficit goes up over here. That's why the government spends more money every year, because every department starts at the same and they go up.

What were you last year? And let's, oh, obviously, you know, you needed all that money from last year. And so all you're doing is baking in all of the waste and fraud and abuse from literally the previous, however many, maybe even 200 some odd years, baking that all in and then adding more to it. So like, of course, that's a terrible system. And instead you say, let's start with zero and you have to justify every taxpayer dollar that you get. And that makes a lot of sense. But if you can manage to combine that

With a system that is so prevalent, obviously, in the private account, which is you actually have to be good at your job. You have to have a... I mean, just...

If you go into my favorite, I barely ever do it anymore, but my favorite sort of fast food franchise is In-N-Out Burger by far. I mean, it's like great food. It's very reasonably priced. It's fast, efficient, like very good. Like, I mean, the people at the counter are like nice and friendly, whatever, all that stuff.

If they had some, if they just had some asshole that was there, you know, yelling at the customers or whatever, like that guy would be gone because he doesn't have this sort of customer first mentality. And that's really the thing. Like if you, if taxpayers are ultimately your customers are kind of the ultimate stakeholders and you're not thinking about that, you have to go. If you're not good at your job, you've got to go. And so if you can sort of combine that where it's like, oh, well, executive agencies have to justify that.

All of their programs. And we combine that with a system where you actually, you know, you have to demonstrate competence. And if you're not competent, you're gone. You're gone. You know, you get fired. What about a crazy idea of assessing the projects that they said they were going to do and if it was a success or a failure? They never look back a couple of years and go, well, you were given money to do this. Did you do that? No, you didn't do that. You failed. You know, I actually heard Elon talk about that in an interview like years ago.

And he was he talked about like every piece of legislation to come with the sunset provision, you know, and the idea being that, like, you know, we're going to pass this law and it's going to expire in five years. And if it's a great idea, then obviously, you know, some Congress five years from now is going to have an incentive. Oh, that's a great idea. Let's let's renew it.

But they don't ever do that. They pass something, they put it on the books and they go, well, okay, Godspeed. And they just sort of hope for the best that like, it's actually going to have an impact. There's not really any accountability on occasion. There will be some thing that they write in there. They will say the secretary shall prepare some report. And, you know, somebody goes in front of the, like the congressional oversight committee or budget finance committee or something like that to show some report. And they say, Oh, this is how many, uh,

widgets we fixed or how many bridges we repaired or something like that. But very seldom does that actually impact legislation, budgeting, continuance, any of this sort of stuff. And so it's just, that's one of the things that's so broken in the system. And it all started with a question you asked me yesterday about Nuremberg style trials related to COVID.

And we can't talk about for a little while. And, you know, at the end of the day, I just I can't shake the fact that like it's just it just seems so petty and sensational. But the larger issue is there has to be a real a private sector level of accountability introduced in the government. And if you don't have that.

It's hard for me to think that they're really going to manage to fix that problem. The big problem of this, you know, the budget deficit spiraling out of control, spending continues to spiral out of control to the point that you're already borrowing the money to pay interest on the money you've already borrowed. And so that becomes an exponential. It starts, you know, your fiscal challenges grow exponentially.

And so you've got to, it's not rocket science. I mean, it's introducing accountability, being able to easily fire people, promoting them based on competence, forcing agency heads to,

justify the budgets that they receive starting from zero, you know, and taking away the Byzantine amount of regulations that exist, which in doing so, you actually take off the handcuffs of the U.S. economy, which is the primary thing that you need is you can't attack

a fiscal deficit problem simply by attacking the cost, you have to come at it from the revenue side. You have to say, if a business is in trouble, sure, they should cut costs, but they should also say, how do we make more money? That's always going to solve the problem is making more money. And how does, as a government, how do you make more money? You generate more tax revenue. How do you generate more tax revenue? Well, on the left, they approach that problem with, we need to raise taxes, which is the dumbest way to do it. And I say dumb specifically because

Literally, like the entirety of US government tax revenue history, going back to World War Two shows that raising tax rates doesn't actually raise tax revenue, right? Because government tax revenue is based on the percent of GDP and the percent of GDP is almost always like 17 to 18% of GDP. So if you're always going to generate 17 to 18% of GDP, shouldn't your goal be to

you know, hey, we can raise tax revenue, tax rates through the roof, or we can slash them to zero. Let's set a tax policy that's going to maximize GDP. More importantly, let's have a regulatory framework that's going to help us maximize GDP, maximize productivity.

The sort of secret weapon is not really so much of a secret, but the weapon, the extra firepower that they have in all of this is that there is a built-in productivity boom, similar to what happened in the 1990s. In the 1990s, you had the internet, all these things were going on. Early 2000s, you had mobile. Now you've got AI that creates this built-in productivity boom. And it's forcing, if nothing else, this AI boom is forcing people

that heretofore had so much cash sitting on their books, right? You look at Apple and Facebook and Google, Alphabet, whatever, all these companies that had hundreds of billions of dollars in cash. And these guys are scrambling right now, like, I got to spend a bunch of money. I got to spend tens of billions, hundreds of billions of dollars. So you're forcing these guys to engage in capital expenditures, CapEx. You're forcing this CapEx just because it's like an arms race in the tech industry. And other companies, companies,

I mean, we have interest in so many different things, right? We have interest in finance. We have interest in fashion. We have interest in obviously technology. All these companies, everybody's investing in, they're investing in, you know, these types of sort of technological making these sort of CapEx type movements. That's good for the economy, right? If nothing else, that creates a lot of investment in the economy, but it also creates productivity boost. And so these are the sorts of things, if you can do that, and that's happening regardless, if you can add to that,

a really slimmed down, scaled down regulatory framework, which in theory is the mission of this new Doge. If on top of that, you can add spending cuts, which I can't think of any human being alive that wouldn't think that you could slim down at least 10% of federal spending. And if on top of that, you can add a demand for competence, holding people accountable

You've got a pretty good shot of fixing this problem, because if you don't fix the problem, right, then you've got an exponential growth in interest spending, which eventually it's only a matter of time. It's an arithmetic problem before that overwhelms. Basically, interest spending essentially consumes 100 percent of tax revenue.

And, you know, it'll be game over way before that. Your only way out realistically at that point is to print your way out. The central bank comes in and prints so much. And we're talking tens of trillions of dollars. And if you got 9% peak inflation when the Fed printed, you know, four or $5 trillion during the pandemic, how much inflation are you going to get if they have to print 20, $30 trillion? It's unfathomable. So you have to fix the problem. And that's how you fix the problem. And part of that is,

And man, part of that is absolutely – you have to hold people accountable and you have to slim down the books. You can't have hundreds of thousands of regulations which carry criminal penalties that nobody is even aware of.