Newsom’s Proposal Fuels Political Debate
Showing mention at 2:09 — highlighted below
Transcript
26 segmentsAll right, here we go again. Another federal versus state showdown this time between the federal government and the state of California, politics, money. A lot of questions about fairness. Can a state just take federal money? Can they tax you 100%? Well, that's what Governor Gavin Newsom is saying out in California that if you get money from this anti-weaponization fund, California is going to tax you 100%. on it, which would basically cancel out any money that you would get. Tanya J. Powers, our Fox News contributor and WJR contributors following this story for us this morning and joins us. Tanya, good morning. Good to have you back. Where are we stand on this? Well, you know, you pretty much summed it up. Gavin Newsom says he does want to put a 100% tax on any payments. Anybody in his state receives from that funds. There are some efforts also underway in New York and New Jersey from Democratic state lawmakers that are kind of the same, you know, in the same vein. So he's not the only one that has been kind of alluding to this or making noise about it. I'm just wondering how the argument, because the, you know, president calls it, you know, restitution for people who are weaponized, you know, against the federal government. Critics call it a slush fund. I'm just wondering, you know, how that argument is playing politically with voters outside, you know, just those hardcore, you know, bases, those partisan bases. Yeah, well, there have been some Democrats and some Republicans that have actually questioned whether this fund is even legal, you know, as well as the part of the settlement that does the, it forever bars the IRS from auditing past tax claims by Trump, his relatives, his businesses. That part is also getting a lot of questions. I'm not sure it's getting talked about as much, you know, the part of the deal that says. The IRS can never, ever investigate him, his family, his businesses, anybody to do with him, basically. There has even been Republican Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who has been, you know, if we're more outspoken lately, he said the fund could potentially compensate someone who assaulted the police officer, admitted their guilt, got convicted, got pardoned, and now we're going to pay them for that. That's absurd. Because, you know, remember, a lot of the people who are expected to file, you know, claims with this fund are expected to be, you know, January 6th defendants. He pardoned more than 1,500 of those defendants last year. You know, some of the people who fall into that category have, you know, talked about online and talked about, you know, how they, you know, will apply for some of the money in this. It's also a note that. Those folks, you know, pleaded guilty, were found guilty by juries, you know, that kind of thing. Some of them were sentenced to jail or prison. I mean...
There was the legal system, you know, played out just as far as those cases went. But, yeah, there have been, there's been a lot of talk on both sides of the aisle, of course, as you would imagine. Yeah. There's been about, I think, over 70 people. I haven't seen the exact number, but about 70 people from what I could find that were from the state of California that were convicted as a result of what happened on January 6th. So it's not like it's a tremendous amount of people, but I guess my question is, Is a state able to override federal money like this? Like, let's just hypothetically say that this is going to go through and they're going to be able to make these payments, whatever. Can a state just take that money? I mean, California is dealing with a pretty significant budget shortfall at this point. Yeah, that's a good question. I'm not sure to, is the short answer. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't really speak to whether that is something that the state can do or not. Good question. I think that's the one everybody would like to know the answer to. Can he really do that? Yeah. And I don't think this is either or I think it's both and, I mean, meaning that this fight is, you know, maybe about policy, but also about, you know, two potential 2028 rivals kind of shaping the next national political battle, you know? Mm-hmm. Well, I mean... In theory, it was just the one because Trump can't run again. Correct, too. But, you know, whoever his backed candidate, you know, kind of would be, yeah, that's not lost on a lot of folks either, is the political, you know, I mean, all of this kind of boils down to be political, if you think about it, because, like you said, Gavin Newsom is a potential 2028. you know, Democratic candidate. I don't think it would surprise anybody if he announced a run at some point, you know, and said that, okay, he's going to throw his hat in the ring. But, yeah, you're exactly right when you're kind of like described the factions that are at war, so to speak, with this. Tony, Jay Powers, always appreciate the time. Thank you. We'll talk again soon. Sure. Thank you. Yeah, you got it. I would even take it a step further. Tony can't because she's a respected journalist. Yeah. Kevin Gavin Newsom's going to run for president. I mean, in every poll, he's leading any potential candidate at this point. So this is certainly about political posturing. It's about pushing back against Donald Trump. Democrats want, Democratic voters want Democrats to push back against Donald Trump. This is, this I feel like would be the answer to that, at least in this particular case. So interesting. When Donald Trump announced that he was going to. start disclosing some information about UAPs, UFOs. Yes. You got excited, didn't you? People like me are very excited about it. And about a month after that, the White House had purchased the domain of aliens.gov. Very excited. Yesterday, the White House sent out a couple of teasers on social media.
You know, crop circles? Yeah. So it sounded like an overhead chopper. It did. View with big spotlights down on a field. Yeah. And in the field, it had a crop circle that said loading on it. Then there were some other teasers that looked like a, you know, your standard run-of-the-mill UFO. disc, little bulb on top with light coming out of the bottom. Yes. Right? Well, then, it turns out, aliens.gov, as that was released, was about illegal aliens and the immigration policies that the administration has put in place. One of the lines that was in the video on the website, for 60 years, the U.S. government has kept a closely guarded secret. Aliens have been walking among us, living in our neighborhoods, and interacting with us in our daily lives. They've shopped in the same stores, attended same classes as our children, and live seemingly normal human existence. With one exception, they do not belong here. Wow. I still want the UAP files, though. You want the real deal. Give me that stuff. That's the stuff I want. Several artists have dropped out of the Freedom 250 concert on the National Mall in D.C., celebrating America's 250th birthday. The artists who publicly withdrew from the lineup are citing concerns about the events political ties. They don't want to be associated one political side or the other, and so they're dropping out. I had read that some of these artists were, like, security concerns. That as well. As a reason that they weren't going. That as well. Now, I mean. You know, young MC. I mean, young MC, you know, people probably, you know, our listener's made, I know who young MC is. He had a song called Bust the Move. And he wrote a great song. Yeah, and he wrote a wild thing for Tone Loke, you know. So, yeah, he says, no. More's day and the time. No, we're not coming. But they were coming. They were coming. But now they're not coming. Some of these people say they didn't know that they were supposed to play. They were booked? Yeah. Martina McBride. Talk to your team then. The Commodores. Brett Michaels. Nope. And Millie Vanilli, who were never contacted and were shocked to see their name on the bill. Millie Vanilli. First of all, Millie Vanilli was fake because they're not the real people who sang the songs. It was somebody else. Okay. And one half of Millie Vanilli is dead. All right. So, you know, I don't know where, I don't know. And they are constructing the UFC ring. I saw that. There's big like over kind of like arches. that are crossing looks like an arcade claw machine game. Yeah. So they're starting that process as well. I don't even know who's on that car, but it must be something big if it's being held at the White House. Yeah, it's a big deal. I mean, Donald Trump friends with Dana White, who owns the UFC. I mean, there you go. Yeah, certainly. 744, time for automotive use with Mike Martinez. It's brought to you by the Michigan Economic Development Corporation. Learn more at Michiganbusiness.org. Chrysler's no longer on life support.
Stalantis said this week the historic brand, which in recent years has been reduced to a single product, will get some much needed investment as part of a new company-wide business plan. That involves updating the Pacifica minivan, as well as adding three new crossovers by 2030. Two of those three new crossovers will be priced under $30,000. With the new products, Stalantis aims to grow Chrysler's volume by 60% to about 225,000 vehicles in 2030. It's all part of an aggressive plan that includes multiple new products for the North American market, including new RAM compact and mid-sized pickups, and an entry-level dodge that executives liken to a better version of the Hornet. There's been some conjecture that scientists might abandon underperforming brands. It's refreshing to see the international automaker recognize Chrysler's value here in the U.S. and give it the money to succeed. With this week's Automotive View, I'm Mike Martinez with Automotive News.