The Rod and Greg Show: Fraud in the SNAP Program; Utah's New Homeless Coordinator Tyler Clancy

Got your hat on? I got my Rod and Greg hat on. I got my awesome t-shirt that says commies don't serve. Yeah, they don't. Well, see, and I'm decked out as a Utah fan. Yeah, I got my red on today. That's got to be a costume of parody. Oh, wow, wow, wow. Just kidding all your Utah fans. Big, big game for the youths tomorrow. Big one of us. College game day is here tomorrow from ESPN. And apparently all the guys have arrived. Look, I think, I think Utah is getting great. play this year this college football season they were you know you had you had them in provo um for game day now you have them back this is the second time they've come back to salt lake city for the utes yeah well you had the fox big noon kickoff oh that's right that's big noon you got you have noon was down at uh at uh at uh b yu this and now college game day yeah this c spian i like pat maccphy i think he he's a pittsburgh he went and kicked balls for west virginia is let me ask you this is do you like anybody who comes from Pretty much. You know, they speak my language. I totally get them. I'm picking up what they're putting down. It's pretty easy. There's a vibe coming out of Pittsburgh. You pick it up. Sometimes alcohol infused, but there is a vibe. That's for sure. It's a drinking town with a football problem, but I don't hold that against my town. No, not at all. All right, we have got a lot to get to. We'll get you up to speed here on the shutdown. Apparently a judge has said, Mr. President. You may not have the money, but you still have to fund the staff program, as if she has the authority to say that. You know, the judiciary has no power of the purse. They have no ability to do what they're doing. This is such an overreach. And this is the judiciary is who you're supposed to go to say, hey, say they passed a law. Does this follow the Constitution? When the judge themselves decide this is the same judge that was trying to force the federal government to. to pay for Planned Parenthood until she got overruled. I just can't. It's just so crazy. And all it does is buy them time. The most reckless, because she doesn't have the power of the purse, it's the most reckless thing you could do to take emergency funds, contingent funds. Spend them all. They're one-time funds. Spend them on ongoing expenses, not knowing how long this is going to last. What you're going to do, you're just going to go ahead and spend three weeks worth and have zero left at the end because this judge says so. Give me a break. No accountability. We're going to talk about that. We're on talking about SNAP. We have a new state homeless coordinator, state representative, Tyler Clancy. We'll be joining us at the bottom of the hour and a lot more to get to today. Plus, as always, your phone calls 888-5708010. on your cell phone dial pound 250 and say hey rod or leave us a comment on our talkback line a robust response yesterday to the screaming lady at the airport yeah we did we got which was a fun show i like and i love that our audience feels comfortable enough to call and say we don't like what you said we thought it was you know poor form or whatever but then we had a lot of we have a lot of listeners that understand me i'll say me you can speak for yourself but get me and understand you know kind of offended

some of our reactions. But look, I think that's an ongoing story. We're going to see a lot of, if we voted for President Trump and we know that there's hard work to be done when you let millions and millions of people in and they're using SNAP and they're using all the public benefits, they're impacting public safety and everything else. How do you reverse that? It's not going to be fun. It's not going to be pleasant. And we're going to continue to grapple with it. And they warned us it's going to be pretty to do this, but we have to do it. Now, I want to start off the show today. Donald Trump has yet done it again. So Donald Trump is getting a lot of heat for what he's doing to the east wing of the White House. Well, from a certain group of people. Well, yeah, a certain group of people. He's building the big ballroom, right? Well, today, before he left for Moralago, apparently they're having a Halloween party down there tonight. The president unveiled a new bathroom for the Lincoln bedroom. It's good. It was overdue. It's very beautiful. It's beautiful. All this marble and gold. Now, where are the Democrats out there criticizing him for renovating the bathroom? Yeah, I'm sure they're coming out, right? Yeah. I haven't heard them yet. They'd sooner have you, they'd sooner put an outhouse in the back than have a, have a renovated nice functioning bathroom. In the Lincoln bathroom. Just off the Lincoln bedroom. The old one had like the commercial, you know, the thing where, you know, the old handling is just pulled down. It's, it's so antiquated, and this one's a very beautiful bathroom. Yes. Well, guess who is critical of the East Ballroom situation? Who? None other than Kamala Harris. You know, I always can tell when Kamala Harris is upset. You know how? Why? I can see her lips move. That's how I know she's upset. Very good. Well, she was on the John Stewart show and was very critical of the president and the East ballroom. That's what she had to say. Are you fucking kidding me? This guy wants to create a ballroom for his rich friends while completely turning a blind eye to the fact that babies are going to starve when the snap benefits end in just hours from now? Come on. So what, I'm not going to be distracted by, oh, does the guy have a big, hammer? What about those babies? Babies, babies, babies in cages till Biden came in. And then the whistleblower at the border lifelong Democrat says, we have strangers picking up all these kids. Didn't seem to give a wit. That's not a legislative function. The Democrats can open up this government the moment. If she's worried about all these babies. Tell those five senators to get up, get off, and get the government working. They've had 13 votes. And the Democrats have said, I think 14 votes. The Democrats say know every time Kamala Harris needs to do the math and know whose job it is to open up the government. It's the Senate and it's the Democrats. Well, now the one or two Democrats have some common sense is John Fetterman. He is one, yes. At least on this issue. Yeah, listen to him talking about the shutdown on CNN last night. We're not allowed to just open this up. I mean, then our party has bigger problems than I thought we might have already. It's like, that's not controversial. Pay everybody. And you have our workers here borrowed over a third of a billion dollars to pay their own bills. Like, it's a failure. And like I said, to all of the viewers, I'm apologizing that...

Well, first of all, it doesn't exist without fraud. And we all know that, you know, there are anecdotes that point to this being rife with fraud, but it's not just anecdotes. You look at the data. There was a Pew Research study that came out a few years ago, and the level of fraud is unbelievable. For the year 2024, 177,000 instances of fraud. So this is across 46 state. It's everything from, you know, we're all unfortunately becoming familiar with these schemes. It's, it's, it's card skimming. It's EBT card trafficking. People selling their EBT credit for, you know, 25 cents on the dollar. So it's full of fraud. But. It even goes to a granular level as far as who is accepted into the program. And one of the things that I think is so concerning to a lot of us who are health conscious people, especially in the age of Maha and make America healthy again, what we see and what we are seeing throughout this program is a situation where in the United States, we all know that the United States has a problem with obesity. So you have people who they gain weight, they become clinically obese, that becomes a clinical diagnosis. They are then available for disability, and then they are automatically enrolled in the SNAP program. And then what do they get when they're on the SNAP program? People are not buying whole fruits and vegetables. They're buying processed food. They're buying a cheap crap. Now, one of the fixes to this, there are a couple different fixes, and one of them is already in the one big, beautiful bill. One of the fixes is requiring work. 20 hours a week, that is literally nothing. You guys like me probably work four times that. So 20 hours a week is nothing. So that's part of the fix. The other part of the fix, and we're seeing this at a state level because it's a federal program, but it's administered by the state. So we're starting to see a number of states who are limiting what you can actually purchase. with your SNAP credit. So it's no longer in states like Nebraska, you can no longer buy sugary drinks, you know, you can't buy Fanta, you can't buy sweet tarts. So they're trying to at least put some guardrails in place so that it's healthier food that people are purchasing. But I would argue that one of the major fixes, what could reverse a lot of this, and I know this probably makes me sound like a bully, but. There was a time when food stamps were literally food stamps. They were these colorful little, you know, stamp-looking paper things. And lo and behold, liberals came out and they were like, oh, this is shameful. You know, it's humiliation-inducing. It's embarrassing for these people. So we're going to make it look like any old debit or credit card so people can just swipe it the way they want to. I would contend that if we go back to the age where that stigma was intact and they were forced to use that, I think that people would go get a job. Now, maybe that seems frivolous, but I think that that's part of the solution because something like this, and I also think that people should reapply. I think the program needs to be not necessarily scrapped down to its bones, but I think that there should be an unenrollment, an involuntary unenrollment period.

And then everybody has to reapply because there are way too many people on this program who don't need to be on this program. I know you guys have seen the social media videos out there. I just watched one last night. The gal on TikTok who was very upset about her benefits running out tomorrow, but she just bought tickets to an NFL game for her three kids. So I don't know about you guys. I would love to go to an NFL game, but I can't afford it because I'm being prudent with my finance. So it's a lot of that stuff. And I think that because of these videos that are out there on social media that the American people are becoming... I hate to say it, less sympathetic to the program, but that's a good thing because not everybody on the program is supposed to be on the program. And if you take the resources away from the people who shouldn't be on the program and concentrate them on the people who do deserve to be on the program, then we're in a lot better shape fiscally. You know, and you're so right. I mean, if nobody wants anyone to starve, but how did we get to a point where if someone doesn't have the resources and we don't want them to starve, you can get on Amazon and you can purchase with EBT card water? I mean, there's zero calories in water, so you're going to be just as hungry and starving with it. You can buy extra, you can buy gum with it. Yes. They've got, some of the things that you're able to buy, and you mention obesity. You can buy a 28-pound bag of truffle salt on Amazon with your EBT bag for $800. Yeah, so I don't understand if we need caloric intake so that we don't starve to death, which was kind of what they do it under the banner of. How did we get to these things that actually... can cause obesity or can provide no caloric advantage at all. Where did that mind shift change in your, do you think? You know, I think it's been death by a thousand cuts. I don't think that there was any one date or any one piece of legislation. I think that this, unfortunately, it parallels with just America's usage and consumption of a lot of processed foods. The more that that became readily available. And look, there's a, there's an upside and a downside to process foods. The upside is because of. agricultural engineering and culinary engineering, we have managed to stamp out salmon in a lot of places. However, it's crappy food. It's really crappy food. So that trajectory parallels. the usage and the consumption of those types of foods. But, you know, if we want to go back to its intended purpose, which is to keep Americans from starving, then I think that we should narrow the availability of items on the menu to maybe 20. And I think that it should be fruits and vegetables, you know, beans, some type of lean meat. Yeah, sure, throw in bottled water. Yeah. But we have to get back to the basics, you know, back to...

the things that really will keep someone from starving, but not make them fat. Yeah, yeah. Amanda, a final question for you. You mentioned states. I know a number of states around the country are trying to do something about this. Have we seen any success on the state efforts to try and do a little more about this, or is it still too early? So Nebraska was the first, and that happened just in May. So we're still kind of trying to, listen, if you quit sugary drinks and soda in May, you might actually start seeing some difference. But we haven't seen that bear out yet because there's just not enough data. But Nebraska was the first state, but Iowa, Indiana, Arkansas, Florida, Texas, West Virginia, those are some other states who are moving that towards the finish line in their own state houses. I think that this time, probably around next year, I would give it a year's worth of data to see what its effects are. But, you know, you don't have to actually see the data to see, to know that if you stop giving free money to people to spend on on Pepsi and Reese cups. that there might be a benefit on the other side of it. Yeah, surprise, surprise, right? Amanda, thanks for joining us. Amanda Head, White House correspondent for just the news. More coming up on the Halloween edition. of the Rod and Greg Show and Talk Radio 105-9, KNRS. A young lawmaker that was elected, I bet he's done big things in his time in the house. Yeah, and he looks like he's got some challenges now. He's been named the Utah State New State Homeless Coordinator. We'll talk with Tyler Clancy in a minute, but there's an interesting comment talking about homelessness made by Elon Musk. Yeah, this came out today in a discussion with Joe Rogan. I think this is front of mind for a lot of people in terms of homelessness, the issue, why so much money is being poured into it, and yet you're seeing the problem get worse. It's almost like fuel to a fire. So this is the discussion. This is the observation that Elon Musk made. The homeless dustral complex is really, it's dark, man. It should be, that network of NGO should be called like the drug zombie farmers. Homeless is the wrong word. Homeless implies that somebody got a little behind in their mortgage payments, and if they just got a job offer, they'd be back on their feet. But someone who's... I mean, you see these videos of people that are just shuffling, you know, they're on fentanyl. They're like, they're not like one drop off or away from getting back on their feet. Elon Musk, and I think he's spot on on that. Greg, you would know you worked on this a lot. Let's bring on state representative. Tyler Clancy, he is the new state homeless coordinator. Tyler, how are you? Welcome to The Rod and Greg Show. Welcome back.

I'm doing great, and thanks for having me. And I do, for the record, I do blame Greg for getting me involved in this work show. Thanks for that. Yeah, you're welcome, Tyler. I've worked with Tyler when I was on the clock and I was a public servant, Tyler was just a go-getter. And he was working with Pioneer Park Coalition, working on this issue. We worked well together. He did become a public servant in the house. He's been doing great things. I'm a little mixed emotion about this, Tyler, because... You are doing great things. I know you've stayed in this space of trying to get genuinely help people, not what Elon Musk talked about, the industrial complex, homelessness industrial complex, which I feel sometimes is all it is. But you know this space better than I'd say, argue anybody. What made you decide to jump in? I know you have the general session. You have obligations as a state representative. But what's compelled you to take on what is admittedly a very, very difficult role in the space of homelessness? Well, if anything's clear from this, it's that I don't really listen to political advisors because it's going to be a tough job. This is not going to be easy, but I truly believe this is going to be the humanitarian crisis of our lifetime. You know, Elon Musk, in that tweet, he describes the streets of Philadelphia and also places in our capital city, in Salt Lake City, where there's people. not much older or even younger than myself bent over at the waist because they're so high on fentanyl or all these other opiates and different things like that. And so for me, the big thing is going to be disentangling what we talk about, what we mean when we say homelessness, because there is, you know, mothers who flee domestic violence. There's families who get squeezed and then they have to go live with, you know, a cousin or a family member in couch. And then there's individuals who are caught in the mix of this. vicious cycle of addiction and untreated mental illness and all these different things. And so we've got to be precise with our interventions because it's not going to be a one-size-fits-all. Tyler, Utah got a lot of attention this week. There's a big spread in the New York Times about our homeless campus and what we're trying to do there. What are your thoughts on that as we move forward in that direction? You know, and when you were speaker Hughes, Greg, you saw this a lot. I mean, there's people who come and they say, hey, there's this golden number. We have 400 homeless people living on the streets. We need a shelter for 400 people. And I just don't agree with that. There's no magic number that's going to solve this problem. It's about the type of beds that we create. What I think is interesting about the campus model is that we can find the range, whether it's a mental health bed, mental health treatment, whether it's a detox, or it's just a place for people to get back on their feet and get back to life and self-sufficiency. Whatever model we go with, that's the kind of ethos we need to bring to make sure that this isn't going to be. the magic number that solves it. It's about the type of...

services that we're providing that we've got to meet those needs. You know, I think it's important for our listeners to know that you come from a family of law enforcement officers. You are a law enforcement officer as well. So you see a lot of things that everyday Utahans do not see. You come with that empathy or even that perspective. One of the things I hated, if you remember, I could not stand the thought of warehousing human beings. It's not compassion. It's the opposite of. Tell me, how do you, how do you go about? understanding the individual issues that people face and keep these predators, the cartels, the drug, you know, the drug dealers, the human traffickers, away from a vulnerable population that they frankly have used to profit themselves. How do you, how do you start to do that, Tyler? Well, you're exactly right. I mean, with your last name being Clancy, you don't have many career options, either like police or fire or, you know, one of a few things. Yeah, yeah, we'll go with that. But, you know, being a cop, you see the best and the worst that humanity has to offer. And you nailed it that when someone's homeless, particularly if they're female, you're actually more at risk of being a victim of violent crime than the average citizen. So when we talk about the humanity of this, it's not just about... Oh, we need to move people along because we don't like how it looks when individuals are homeless on the street. No, no, no. This is a very, very important public health issue as well. The number one cause of death for homeless utons is a fatal drug overdose. So when we talk about the urgency of this, these are moms and dads. These are sons and daughters who are never coming back. And so when we think about, you know, what is mission success or what is mission failure look like? That would be our main motivator is that this is the work of saving lives. The good news, we have programs in Utah and in our capital city. They're doing amazing work. I could name a thousand, but I just want to highlight the other side village that's continued to expand. And this is where people are going, not just to get a roof over their head, but to change their lives and to heal. And things like that are so inspiring to me. Yeah, they are. Well, Tyler, I know we'll be talking more down the road. Good luck with your selection. And thanks for joining us, and happy Halloween to you. Thank you. You got it. Thank you both. Thank you. That is State Representative Tyler Clancy. Still serving in the Utah legislature, but headed to become the state's new homeless coordinator. I think you'll do a great job. I'm telling you, I'm so tired of the people that just want to, they think they can hug it out. They want to treat people the same. They don't recognize the drug dealers and all the crime going on. Tyler won't be that kind of guy. I know he won't. Well, he understands it. Like you said, he's from law enforcement. Yep. He's going to spot it right away. And that's one of the big keys that you don't see in that space that needs to be. part of it so all right we've got a lot more to come on this uh halloween edition of the rodding gregg show and utahs talk radio 1059 knRS well this one scared the daylight out of me this morning gregg i'll be honest when president trump suggested hey let's get over the shutdown and let's get rid of the filibuster yeah well you can do it you can be prescriptive you can be surgical about it yeah i'm i'm down with that on reopening the government just like you can pick areas where you could allow that to be the case now listen to this list

of things that may have passed without the filibuster. Ready for this? Mm-hmm. D.C. statehood. Okay. Okay. Puerto Rican statehood. Okay. Okay. Supreme Court packing. Okay. National voter ID. Okay. $15 minimum wage. Cap and Trade National Energy Tax, Medicare for all socialized medicine and pro act forced unionization. these would have passed without the filibuster. Here's where I don't agree with that. So Harry Reid, when he was the majority leader, a Democrat majority leader, he decided in a more narrow way of reducing the filibuster for nominees. He wanted Obama to be able to have more success and be able to nominate more judges. So he took the 60 down to 51. So for judicial nominations, it went to 51 that did not serve us poorly when Trump became president in 16 or right now. And people have said, Harry, you made a mistake. Oh, yeah. That was a mistake on your part. Because we have been able to absolutely enjoy real true good nominations of the court that we would not have seen had Harry Reid not done that. I believe, I think the law is just as that had been a very narrow circumstance in which 51 votes would prevail. I think a narrow 51 votes to open up the government again. I think it's appropriate. I don't think you have to do it all. I don't think the policy issue is there. I think a continuing resolution to keep things without change. As they are, without change, no poison pills. Just hold serve as you negotiate. Could be a 51. Look, when Trump sends a rescission package, that one, that only requires 51 votes. We did that. So you're okay with it. In very narrow, narrow circumstances, I would be good with that. All right. Well, I want to bring up something, you know, Ronald Reagan was often called the Great Communicator. People very impressed with Barack Obama over the years, his oratory skills, right? But where does Donald Trump fall into this? Listen to this response from of all people, Chuck Todd. MSNBC. Remember old Chuck? Well, he's still around. He talked about Trump, the communicator. Who's the best communicator of this generation? I guess you have to say it's Donald Trump. He's your answer for a lot of things. I would have said, this is going to surprise a lot of people. Well, he's figured out how to communicate in this fragmented environment. Yeah. Who else has? And punched through. Right. Yeah. So when you're, if the question is effective communicator, he's effective. Look, Barack Obama sort of was, I do think Barack Obama figured out how to do something that another Democrat.

If they can figure it out, we'll be the next leader, which is how to make progressives think you're a revolutionary and how to make moderates think you're a pragmatist. That was also a pretty good. uh and effective he he's the best communicator the democrats have had in the 21st century but you got to say that trump's been the more effective communicator of anybody what has made him effective do you think i think he's authentic i do and first off the obama characterization is how do you trick people how do you make the leftists think you're leftist how do you make the normies think you're normal but what trump's done and this has been that he's rough around the edges When Trump speaks, you don't hear, you do not think you hear a politician. And that works out really well for most of America who doesn't like politics or trust politicians. So if you don't sound and you don't exude, you know, say whatever I need to, where are people going so I can lead them there? Say nothing to offend no one. All the stuff that politicians fatigue the American people over the way they speak and what they say or what they don't say. You get none of that with Trump. Trump will be as honest as candid as humanly possible, which a lot of the sophisticated types think is boorish. But everyday Americans, they think they're listening to someone to give them the real deal. He is himself. He's not going to change. He doesn't show up on some farm field wearing a flannel coat and jeans. That's right. He shows up in a shirt and tie because that's who Donald Trump is. He is authentic. And the American people see that. I think that's why they voted for him. And I think Todd was right. He knows how to communicate because he tells the truth and he's real. That's right. And even when, you know, it's impossible to agree with everyone on everything. So knowing that. You don't expect someone to try to make you happy on all fronts, but to know where they are, know where they genuinely are. That's, that is, that's important. Coming up, the hour number two, federal workers, should they get back pay? Mr. Hughes has an opinion on that, as do I. We'll talk about it coming up. I thought I saw a story today earlier. I think it may have been from Wallet Hub saying Utah is the fifth most dangerous state when it comes to Halloween. But from car accidents or just dangerous? Yeah, car accidents or people, you know, kids getting hit. Yeah. Well, you know what? I think that the roads being so straight and wide and a grid pattern makes people lazy about driving. I think they drive less attentive because it doesn't require your every, you know, you have to be. I mean, when you're back. In Pittsburgh, I mean, there's no straight roads. Everything's a turn. You cannot look at your phone because there's a turn coming. And it's coming like right now. And there's no straight lines. It's just constant moving. Your steering wheel is moving all the time. Utah, man, that steering wheel might not move more than a few inches for 30 miles. Yeah, man, that's true. Can't even get a horse down the streets in Pittsburgh. No, you could not. It's kind of narrow. All right. Government shutdown. I believe it is on Monday.

Monday will mark if the shutdown continues, and there are no indications that it's going to end anytime soon, Monday would mark this as the longest shutdown in government history coming up on Monday. Yeah. Well, we know how it starts. I mean, I don't care what anyone's telling you. There's just there's Democrats in the Senate. They could just go with status quo and. start up the government again and there is no um there's no lack of of accountability or or historical record where democrats said that is exactly what should happen yeah before you shut down the government. Well, we thought we would see a couple of exit ramps. Now, the new one that they're talking about, Greg, is waiting until after Tuesday's elections. You've got the governor's race in New Jersey and Virginia and the mayor's race in New York, and they're waiting until those results come in if the Democrats win and the projections are. They will, except New Jersey is very, very close right now, that they may move ahead and say, okay, let's get the government open again. But I don't see it. I mean, they may want to make it really hurt. And if we get closer to the holidays, Greg, it's going to really hurt. I honestly think that the Republicans have nowhere to go, and I hope they're not the ones that blink in this because whatever you do, you're going to get more of. If you give away any kind of concession under this tactic, expect whatever time you bought, whatever it is you gave them to keep it open for some period of time, they not only will try this game again, they'll become even more aggressive. Yeah. And as a minority in the House and the Senate and not having the White House, they are not in a position to interrupt the status quo. The negotiation ought to be for new budgets, new arrangements. But to stop this government because you don't want to continue what was actually passed when Biden was president because you want more. It would be a disaster for the Republicans. They have no choice. They cannot succumb to this. Well, and I don't think they will because what we heard the president say today, when he got off the plane in Florida, someone asked him, will you meet with the Democrats? He said, sure, I'll be glad to meet with the Democrats. Open the government and then we'll sit down and talk. Yes. And that has to be the position. And I hope the Republicans hold to that position, Greg. Again, I don't think they, I think they would buy themselves so much more trouble. if they were to capitulate at this point. No one's happy where it's at, but we have to make sure we stay laser-focused on where the blame lies, and it's those that shut down the government and didn't vote to keep it going. That's the Democrats. Well, now, this is where I want to take this discussion, okay? Issues and insights. Terry Jay Jones. We've had Terry on the show many times before they do a lot of...

Interesting polling. We've had Terry on talking about that. Their editorial board today wrote this, don't give federal workers a dime in back to pay. Yeah. Now, here, list of this argument, okay? They say, why should government employees be paid for work they didn't do? No one should have a problem, and I don't, I don't think you do either, Greg, with active duty, military personnel, air traffic controllers, law enforcement officers, and other essential workers who are doing their jobs when no incomes during the shutdown getting back pay. They put in the labor, they deserve the money. But. Those who have not been working should not be free to enjoy a month of free vacation time. When private sector workers are sent home for any reason, you don't get back pay. Why should the government give you back pay? Well, I challenge that because here's the thing. It's not a vacation. I mean, people, their household budgets depend on a household income. You have, and if you're your family and you've got a mortgage and you've got food and you've got utilities and you've got car payments and whatever it is you have. You have a job that is to provide those things. Beyond your control, you haven't been laid off because there's benefits being. I mean, if you lose your job, there's a way, there's a social safety net for unemployment and things if you lose your job. But if the government can't get their act together and now you're not able to work and it's no decision of your own, that's not a vacation, especially, and if you took away their money that they didn't budget for it, it's not their two weeks vacation. I'm telling you, it is not the fault of those ready to work and it should be at work. that the guys getting paid in the Senate for right now for not keeping that government open are going to take away their pay even though they're ready to show up and need to show up at work you can't take their money well isn't there a federal law now that says you can't do that you have to give them back may well i think there is if there's not there ought to be i i don't even i don't understand the logic of how you would how you would punish those for decisions that are beyond their control. It's kind of like when we had COVID and everyone said, we got to go, you know, flatten the curve and stay inside for two weeks. You know, the biggest worry then when that happened was, how does everybody get paid? How do businesses that aren't able to stay open and operate, pay their employees? How does, and those employees, how do they pay their rent, their mortgage, buy their groceries, pay for their carpet, all that. You can't just, government can't just cut off everybody's gainful employment. And then... You know, by no choice of their own thing and say, yeah, too bad. You're not getting paid, even though we're the ones that made you stop working. Years and years ago, Greg, and we have talked about this before. Yeah. Well, I thought that people in the private sector get paid more than those who work for the government. That used to be the case. That used to be the case. But listen to this. In 2021.

The average annual federal employee total compensation package that include, you know, everything, right, was $143,643. Yeah, go look at the median income of this country. You're not going to see that number. Those in the private sector averaged 88,152. So what is that? That's 43, 12. That's, you know, that's what, $60,000 more. It's wrong. It's absolutely wrong. And that's what's wrong. You know, the big mantra when I was young was if you get a government job, yeah, your pay isn't high, but you get great bennies. You get the great benefits. And benefits, they meant you get a good health care, but then you have a pension at the end when you can retire. This is good benefits, it's good pension, good health care, and then more money in the household income than you're making in the private sector. It's insane. It's wrong. Well, you brought this up. It wasn't that way long ago. Two decades ago, federal workers raked in about $69,000. Private sector workers, 46,000. A little bit closer back then. But now, 143,000 compared to 88,000? What has happened to this? It's wrong. And again, it's not sustainable. The people that pay the taxes in the government, I mean, government's not creating anything. They're spending the taxpayer money. It's upside down. And it can't, and it's not sustainable. And I don't think that's by accident. I think there's people that want to see. our system of government fail. And this is certainly a way to do it. I think everyone depended on government money. Let's throw this question out tonight. Is you're working away home should federal workers who get a dime in back pay? They have to now, I believe. I think as a government law, they passed a bill on this. But those non-essential employees who aren't working, air traffic control, military, they're working. But the non-essential folks should they get back pay? 888-570-80-10 or on your cell phone dial pound 250 leave us a message on our talkback line as well before we break let's go to the phones let's hear from gregg in battleful tonight greg how are you welcome to the rod and gregg show good ron and gregg hey my question for you is these guys who are federal employees i used to be one now have to go get a loan the loan has an interest rate Is the government going to be paying their interest rate because they're the ones that shut down the government, not the person who used to be the employee? We're not talking about, you know, the extra cost that these people are incurring due to the fact that the government is inefficient and idiotic. Yeah, yeah. I would not think they'd pay the interest rate. Yeah, I know, Greg. This is worse than that. This is saying that when you make it that loan, they don't even want to pay the back pay for the time that they, you weren't able to go to work. So forget the interest on the loan. They don't want to even give you the money to pay the loan. Yeah. Because. Well, you can't get a loan if you don't have a job. Yeah, well, yeah, they have one technically. You can't get a loan if you don't have a job. That's true. That's true. All right, Greg, thank you. Appreciate your phone call. All right, more of your calls and your talkback line comments coming up on the Rod and Greg show and Utah's Talk Radio 105.9, KNRS. All right, we're talking right now about this article we saw in which this issues and insights saying, You know, people are just sitting home not working right now because of the federal shutdown that they, you know, federal workers shouldn't be given a dime in back pay. They're not working. You have some essential workers that without regard to whether the government's over or not, they have to still do their job, question is those that have been sent home and have not been working.

Should they receive back pay for the time they haven't worked? I would argue that they do. I think budgets, family budgets, I think that that money is accounted for. They are not on a vacation. They're not. They don't know when this shutdown is going to end. They're ready to work. It's not their decision. But what say you folks? Let's go to the phones. And let's go to Larry, who's in Roy. Larry, thank you for holding. Welcome to the Rod and Greg show. Back pay for federal employees that are not at work. What do you think? I don't think, first of all, thanks for having me on the show. Love your guys' show. Thanks. I don't think they should be paid, and here's my reason why. If you work in the private sector, you can be laid off, fired for any reason. And say you're laid off because the economy slows down or whatever the reason is with that corporation, they're making changes. When you shouldn't not be able to work for the government and think that your job is guaranteed, and we all know it's not performance-based in the first place, why should you be guaranteed money when something disrupts the flow? Just because there's maybe a government shut down every 10 or whatever years for a minimum amount of time, nothing should be guaranteed and everything should be performance-based. And if you're not at work and the whole world is essentially functioning, why should you get back pay? I don't agree with that. All right. That's his argument. It's a little bit different in the private sector, I think. I would think if you lose your job, you can apply for unemployment benefits. I think there is a way to get funds if you find yourself without, and you've been gamefully employed. You've been laid off or let go and you, I don't think you can get it. If you're fired, can you get it? I don't know. Anyway, but he brings up a point, but here's what I would ask. If we go back to the COVID days when we were all. told to go into our homes. So all of us stopped our jobs. We all stopped whatever we were doing. And the very businesses in which we worked were shut down as well. I would argue that I think by no fault of our own and the government telling us that you can't stay open, you can't operate, it would be pretty hard. I mean, the banks would have the best time in the world if no one could pay a mortgage and no one could pay. If you can't pay on the least restaurant space that you're in because you have no customers coming in. Who gets everything? If you're not allowed against your will, you're not allowed to work, and you've got bills coming in every 30 days, what are you supposed to do? Even though you want to work, you're not allowed to work. I'm just saying, man, if you got bills coming every 30 days, who benefits if I have enforced against my will, I can't work? And then what's the consequence of that. Let's go back to talk back line, see what they have to say. Hey, Rod and Greg, happy Friday, happy Halloween. So here's my thought.

First and foremost, those lawmakers who are still getting paid right now, they should not be getting paid and they should not get back pay because, well, this is their fault. As for the military, they should get back pay 100%. And air traffic controllers, air traffic controllers should be privatized at this point. Let me know what you think. Well, I agree with you. There are a couple points I agree with them. Lawmakers now. Members of our congressional delegation, I saw a note today from Congressman Mike Robert F. Kennedy Jr., he's not getting paid. He said, I don't want it right now. Well, this shutdown is going on. And I would imagine I am seeing comments from other members of the delegation. But, you know, if they don't get, they should step and say, hey, I don't. We don't, and most of them don't need the money to begin. Well, I'll tell you this. I think many do, but here it's irrelevant to me. You want to talk about someone who doesn't deserve to be paid and should never get back pay. It would be these lawmakers who dysfunctional in the Senate who can't keep the government open. Yeah. But so I think they should all not get paid and I don't think they should get back pay. And I think that that would actually, as sad as it is to say, I think their own personal pocketbook being impacted would. compel them to behavior that they aren't willing to do right now. Because when you see at the end of July, when they're staring at an August recess, which is there month long, we can leave Washington and not come back. the things they are able to accomplish by way of legislation and votes because they want to just leave town now go ahead if that's such a strong motivator take away their pay and tell me and you're not getting back pay either so it's not like it's coming back in any kind of form if you whenever you decide to get your act together i think that should that they are the ones who should not be paid right now nor should they receive back pay i totally agree with what he said at the end privatized TSA, privatize air traffic controllers. I agree. I would agree. All right, let's go to a talkback line. Hey, Rod and Greg. We just heard that. We just played that one. All right. We'll take a break and come back with more of your comments and your phone calls. 888-570-80-1010 on your cell phone dial pound 250 and say, hey, Rod, or leave us a message on our talkback line by. downloading the brand new iHeart radio app more coming up on the rodding greg show well researchers say that we as humans we adapt more easily to the fallback than we do the spring for it yeah i never actually ever get used to really this yeah i love i love the changes i like i like it getting lighter or darker later i like that but the mornings are always tough Always. As you well know. Yeah. You try to wait me up for pre-production calls. 8.30 and he's still sleeping. Good morning. I've been up for 15 seconds. How are you? It's a 15-second day. All right. We're talking about federal workers back pay as a result of the government shutdown, which as of Monday will be the longest ever. Let's go to the phones and see what you have to say tonight. Greg. Let's go to Nancy, who's in Caysville. Nancy, thank you for holding. Welcome to the Rod and Greg Show. Welcome, and thanks for doing what you guys do. Oh, thank you.

Hey, so I have two sons who are in the military. And they're not getting paid. They have no chow halls. They have no PX. They have no supplies, nothing. One is deployed. One is at a school. And they don't get paid. They'll, they will eventually get paid. But as far as, as far as federal workers, if they're given the option to work. and they don't work, they shouldn't get paid. If they're not given the option, then I think they should get paid. I like that, Nancy. And as far as the congressman, yes. Yeah, that's a wrinkle we haven't thought about Nancy. You were going to say something else. Go ahead. Oh, yeah, as far as the Congress, they could care less about their paychecks. They're all multi-millionaires. They could care less. But if you make it mandatory that if they... If they can't pass a budget, they get no staff and no security. Yeah. They get no staff and no security. Oh, I like that, Nancy. I'm picking up what Nancy's putting down because if their staff, all their staff didn't get paid either, then they'd start filling it. Yet that's, that's, there's a thing about that. Does their staff get paid? Does their staff get paid? Of course they do. Of course they get paid. Let the staff start not getting paid. Security staff and them. It'll change. I'll bet you anything. Everybody gets a little pep in their step starts doing the right thing real quick. I love that idea. Back to the phones we go. Hill Air Force Base. We're talking with Roy tonight on the Rod and Greg Show. Hi, Roy. How are you? Good evening. Doing well. Greetings from Hill Air Force Base where freedom flies overhead daily. Thank you. Yeah, we love it. Thank you. Yeah. So I was involved in the 2013 partial government shutdown where they furloughed us one day a week. And once it opened back up, we never saw any of that money in back pay. So one day a week, we had to stay at home. So we weren't working. So I agree with Nancy. If you're not working, you shouldn't get paid. If you are forced to work, you're essential and whatnot. Yeah, you should get paid. Yeah. Yeah, Nancy, I think Nancy, thank you, Roy. Thank you. I was going to ask Roy, but how did you feel about that? Like you were furloughed once a week. It wasn't his choice. Yeah, that's true. But you know, I like what Nancy said, too, because you can come in and work. If you want the back pay, because you just got to grid it out, better than sitting, you know, watching soap operas on the couch, you know, eat lazy potato chips. Sounds a little specific, doesn't it? Why does that sound like you? No, I was a kid, man. Sometimes I watched... soap operas when I was a little kid. You watched soap operas? How could you watch a soap opera? It was barren going to school. I was in high school. I'd watch young and a wrestler. You'd watch it soap opera. Yeah, I'd watch them. And get this. When I went to Australia, they were ahead of lag, I could tell people like, oh, if you, I know what's going to happen for the next year on that show right there. It made me very popular. Let's go to Aaron in Smithfield tonight on the Rod and Greg show. Aaron, how are you? Welcome back to this show, man. I'm good. I just want to take a little bit different spin on this shutdown. And I'm going to recite some statistics that I heard yesterday. And if you would, just let me finish with them and I'll get to the point. It showed that the SNAP benefits, the majority of the, or I'll say half of the SNAP benefits go to non-citizens in the country. Half of the Afghan refugees are on SNAP.

And in the United States, it was, I forget the exact number, but it was over 60-some percent are white Americans that pay a hair over 71 percent in federal taxes and claim 8 percent of the SNAP benefits. So what I look at is, and I'm going to go out on a branch here a little bit and think that the majority of the SNAP benefit individuals are in Democrat cities. And it is just a shame of what is happening to our minority communities when so many have to rely on these benefits. And if we even go back to pre-COVID spending, we would actually have a surplus in our federal budget. Wow. Yeah, good numbers, Aaron. Thank you. Yeah, Aaron's Arjunzer from Al-Tuna. But let me just say this. I just, it's hard for me to see the number of, when you see the number of people that were able to cross the border illegally under the Biden administration and you see the tracking of SNAP benefits going up the same percentage, they are just, it's like train tracks. They go up at the same exact rate. There's a correlation there. It's hard to imagine that there's not, especially when you hear the statistics that were just shared. And that's wrong. I mean, if you come here legally, you have to have like a two-year sponsor. There's no getting on benefits right away. This whole thing has been built to fail and to collapse on itself. And I think that's by design. Do you think the Trump – we're going to take a break, but a quick question, Greg. Do you think the Trump administration will say now, okay, a judge has told us we have to pay, so we are going to pay, and let it go for another three weeks? Do you think they'll continue – do you think they'll appeal this ruling by a judge? You know, it's hard to tell. It's, you know, there's not enough. I guess they say it's what, $7.5 to $8 billion to get you through the month of November. They've got about $5.something billion. So it would be a scaled back version of SNAP anyway. The scary part of it is when you have a reserve account of one-time money, it's not ongoing, it's one-time. how you stretch that out for as long as you need to. Yeah. Should be up to them in the Office of Management Budget and the executive branch, not some judge that doesn't pay any of the bills saying clean out the account, spend all of it now. What do you do when that time runs out? It's not going to worry. It's irresponsible. All right. When we come back, more calls, more comments on the talkback line. It is the happy Halloween edition of the Rod and Greg Show right here on Utah's Talk Radio 105.9 KNS. Spirit of Racing and the... Right back to the phones we go. Let's talk with Scott and West Valley tonight. Scott, how are you? Welcome to The Rod and Greg Show. Happy Halloween, by the way. Happy Halloween. Thanks. I appreciate it. I would like to propose that we even out the public and private sector. If you're not working, it's not your fault, you get unemployment. The other thing I like to say, the argument is not, the argument, it's not their fault. They have needs.

That is a liberal argument. That's all I got. Okay. All right, Scott. You just made a liberal argument. Well, I did, but I come from the point where when the government shut down everybody during COVID and how ticked off I was and how I know bills are going to be arriving for everyone every 30 days and some in government decided they were just going to just put a pause on our entire economy. Yeah. Ticked me off. And it wasn't my fault. And it wasn't, you know, anyway. So that's kind of the perspective. I just keep thinking about that. It's like. Some things be under control. My gosh. I mean, and I'm not talking, you know, if I lose a job because I, you know, they laid me off or I got fired. Reduction enforced. I, you know, I've been through all, you know, I've been through that. I don't have any, you know, no one's taking care of me. So I get all that. But I'm saying if, if the government just decides it's going to. You know, do what it's done, and it impacts people. It's, it's, I have a hard time having everyone else pick up and clean up their mess. Let's go back to the phones. Let's talk with Tom in Mantai. We don't get very many calls from Mantai, do we? No, I love this. It's nice hearing from Mantai. How's Manti tonight, Tom? High and dry. High and dry. There you go. Love it. Love it. What are your, what are your comments, Tom? Go ahead. Use the emergency money to those that can qualify for the program. Yep. You know, can we, Tom, and by that you mean like qualify as in, as in, we're not just hand in the snap that benefits to people that are here illegally that don't have illegal standing. You're talking about people that, you know, paid taxes at some point, we would imagine and are there. So, yep, I hear you. All right, Tom, thank you. I think if the Rod and Greg show audience could run this country, we would, I think we would be. doing real well only if we were kings no i don't need to be no kings no kings no kings all right back to the phone let's go to our talkback line weigh in on this why do we have 42 million people on snap You know, one of the biggest telltales was people are playing these TikTok videos and they're all complaining about the fact that they might have to go to work for 20 hours. Doesn't that say a lot? How many people do you think actually qualify for this program and who are the legislators that expanded the benefits? Yeah, that's a good, that is a very good observation. $100 billion a year for this thing, 41.7 million people on it. You know, I don't have a calculator big enough to do it, but I did figure it out. That comes to, but there's administrative costs, but actually 41.7 million people out of $100 billion is $2,398 that you would receive. What is that?

Total for the year? How much? Oh, out of that 100. So that would be for the whole year. Yeah. So, but no, the nightmare is, and I'm sure it's the case, two things are happening. One, people that have no right to it are getting it. Second, the fraud and the amount of people using it that have no right to it in terms of how much they're spending and what they're spending it on, terrible. I'm sure it's wrong. I think, Greg, the real scandal here, in my opinion, is not the government shut down. I think the scandal is that we have become a dependent society. Yeah. You've got 42 million Americans. who are living on food stamps, and they're getting anywhere from $400 to $800 a month in some cases. The scandal is the dependency that this society has become. And you'll never tell me, oh, we looked for work forever and we couldn't find it, so we're just in dire straits. I don't buy it. I don't buy it. I think it's designed to create that dependency on the federal government, not on the free market, which free market has pulled more people out of poverty than any government program. you know, U.N., federal, state, county, you name it. Put them all together. The free market's lifted more people out of poverty, and that's the way it should be equal opportunity, not equal outcome, and let people have the liberty of self-determination. Yeah, and I'm old school on this, but if you're facing financial challenges, Greg, you go back and you say, okay, what can we eliminate? Well, we can get rid of the TV. We don't have cable TV. We can get rid of the cell phone. We can get rid of this. We can get rid of that. Do people even do that anymore? They don't have to because they know Uncle Sam's going to come in and help them out. Yeah, the nice to haves that have somehow become half to halves is an offense. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's just kind of crazy. Well, I don't know where this thing's going to end up, Greg. We, you know, like I said, I think as a Monday, it becomes the longest shutdown in government history or in the history of the United States. And I don't see the Democrats budging right now. You heard the president. He's not moving. He said, yes. Sure. You want to meet? Come meet. It would be the biggest nightmare in the world to capitulate to this being held hostage because you're going to get more of it. It'll just usher in more of this insanity. You can't do it. Yep. It's ridiculous. All right. Another hour of the Rod and Greg Show coming your way on this Halloween 2025. Stay with us.

A lot to get to this hour. We're going to talk more about the situation involving affordability of homes. We're talking about the impact of attacks on scholarly speech. A lot of professors. around the country say they're being disciplined because they're speaking their mind. They're sharing their thoughts. It's probably like a dozen conservative professors in American. Of course, they've been singled out and they run out on a rail and all the libs. Yeah, I think a dozen may be too high. I know. Sad to say, isn't it? You get this unicorn professor that actually thinks clearly and they're all they just want to oust them. We'll talk about that. And of course, our Listenback Friday segments coming your way at the bottom of the hour. All right, let's talk about big government, Greg. And the role it plays in a affordable housing. You've dealt, you've been in this business, you understand this. Real quickly, what's your take on what you see going on? Is it too much regulation? What is it? The zoning issues are difficult. I can only speak for the Wasatch Front in terms of the whole state of Utah, but I will tell you this. People feel like they've checked the box on density, on traffic, on quality of life. It seems to be going down and what cost of living is going up. So inherently, when you're looking to put any kind of higher density, if you want a single family home, the lot needs to be a little smaller because the land costs a lot. It doesn't go over well with communities, and I understand why that they don't want more of everything, but that's the conflict. How do you provide? How can we make sure there's a supply of housing because the demand is high without... people being impacted to the point where they show up with pitchforks and torches. Yeah. And I notice today, though, mortgage rates are coming down, lowest they've been for quite some time. That's right. That's right. The interesting to see. Well, let's talk about this issue. Joining us on our newsmaker line right is Sam Karnick. He is an author, a senior fellow at the Heartland Institute. Sam, thanks for joining us this afternoon. What do you see going on when it comes to big government, as you're right, locking young people out of homes? There are several things going on, and you're right. It is amazing because... There are so many factors that lead to this kind of excessive cost of housing, but it really comes down ultimately to a simple factor. It's that there's too much demand and too little supply. And that happens because of a couple of important things. One, we've had an enormous amount of immigration over the past few decades. And we've gone from a country that had about 240 million people to one that's around 340 million people. You had that many people and you need to build a lot of houses. But housing, the building of new houses hasn't really expanded anywhere near, nowhere near as rapidly as it needed to be. And that's even including multi-unit housing. So the expansion of the population along with the reduced amount of growth in housing has caused an excess of.

demand over supply. And that pushes up the price. Now, one of the big reasons that you have this inability, really, to get new houses built, is that you have so much restriction on what you can do in terms of housing. So in various cities across the country, one of the strongest trends is to make sure that they're going to have a more crowded city so that people are living closer together. But in order to do that, And they do that because they think it's a nicer way to live and it's cheaper for driving around and it's good for the environment because you don't go into areas that are wetlands and the like and develop them into housing developments. But what that means, though, is that you are going to have much less housing that way. So when they put these restrictions on the growth of the growth of the housing stock in cities, that really, really affects the amount of building you can do. You know, so imagine Utah. We live in a valley and we have probably 75 to 80 percent of the entire state's population in four contiguous counties here in Salt Lake Valley. We call it the Wasatch Front. So the land is finite. Yeah, we've grown over a million, you know, one and a half million people probably in the last 30 years, probably doubled population. So the land starts to cost more. Most of the government regulation that I've seen really revolves around density. How close you'd let those homes be built next to each other. How many homes would be in a subdivision? Some of that has to be, is the discussion of traffic. Even your commercial areas will have more traffic than a residential area. So the idea is that some people resist or want government zoning because they want to keep their neighborhoods quiet. They don't want to have as much density. How do you weigh? issues of density and the quality of that life with the cost of living that's really making it more and more expensive if you don't have a higher density model in your housing. Yes, the way you weigh it is through the market. And that's exactly what has happened, though, is that places where you have the greater density and intentionally keep it from growing, keep the footprint, let's say, of the urban area from growing, where you have that, you're going to have higher prices.

But the problem is that people get, it's not a problem, it's just a reality, that people get more wealthy as they grow as they grow older. They work longer and they've worked longer and they've saved more money. And so it's easier for them to buy a house. Well, what happens then is that that is an advantage for older people and they can afford. to live in these denser places. They can afford to live in places where the housing stock is not allowed to grow. But then what that does to younger people is it prices them way out of the market. And that's why the age of people buying their first house has increased greatly over the past few years. So these effects are, they're different for different age groups. And that's what we, that's what young people are suffering now is that they don't have the money that an older person does or a middle age person does. So the average age of a first time home buyer is now 38 years old. It was 35 just two years ago. It's jumped up three years in two years. And in the, in the 1980s, The first age of first time buying the home was late 20s. Yeah. So it's gone up, but it's almost doubled. Yeah. Well, Sam, let me ask you this. You bring that up. I remember when my wife and I were married, I was 24 years old at the time. We got into our first home eight months later. I mean, we're in there very, very quickly. You're right on target. Yeah. For what these people, for these first time home buyers, what do they do now? Do they just sit and wait? Hopefully their income rises that they can buy into a home. What do they do right now? That's right. They end up having to sit and wait. And it's a shame because there's no reason for this to happen. Because, you know, you can keep your cities tight and small. Yes. But then what that happens then is that if you've got all the jobs are in the city or a major amount of the jobs are in the city, especially the, you know, cities are always trying to attract young people. Well, the way to attract them though is you're going to have to find housing for them that's reasonably close to their job. What you do now is you price them out of the city itself. They have to live in the far distant suburbs. They've got a much less attractive standard of living, quite frankly, because when you have children, for example, now you have to drive an hour and a half to work, an hour and a half back. You don't have much time for those children and for the special events that you use, the ball games that play and the like. So it really is a very bad system that we've placed, that we put in place.

by making these restrictions. Now, if you have a place like the Wasatch Valley where you don't have the land, that's one thing. And it's just going to be that way. But this is not true all across the country. Mostly, it's just happening because cities are trying to tighten up their... their property, the amount of property that people have. And what that does is it jams more people into the city. And frankly, they're hoping to get more tax money that way. On our newsmaker line, that's Sam Karnick. He is with the Heartland Institute talking about homes and he sees what's going on just like you do. Yeah. It's a real challenge. Yeah, it's a challenge. And the worst thing for Utah would be to have such a strong young... Emerging Workforce, Young State, and we're going to export them because there's nowhere to go. They leave. It would be the worst case scenario. All right, more coming up on the Friday Halloween edition of The Rod and Greg Show on Talk Radio 1059, KNRS. All right, let's continue as we talk about what's going on on college campuses. The price of speaking freely in today's higher academics, Greg, is very, very high. Yeah, it's insult to injury. You think all the professors were just liberal anyway and they just people that can do, those that can't teach. So you get this Motley crew. And then you find that you get some good ones that have common sense, maybe right of center, and they're silenced. Yeah. They're silenced. Yeah, joining us on our newsmaker line. They've just done a study on this is Nathan Honeycutt. He is with a foundation for individual rights and expression. Let's talk about the freedom on higher education levels and what professors are telling you. What have you found out, Nathan? Yeah, thanks, Rod. The price of their pain is pretty steep for many of these faculty who are sharing their views or teaching classes on certain topics. that then upset some people, whether it be students or other faculty or the public, they're paying for it with their jobs. Ultimately, many of these faculty are being fired for speech that otherwise should be protected. They're paying for it with... substantial emotional distress and loss of friendships and missed opportunities professionally, all because people are offended by something that they said or did. And what's interesting too is it's the... Depending on the campus, there's different ideological tilt, but the negative experiences by faculty sanctioned for their speech are consistent whether the faculty is a liberal faculty member being targeted, a conservative, moderate faculty, anything in between. The experiences are similar. It's that's there, it's pretty dire.

You know, Nathan, my greatest learning curve, I think, in just where I was politically as a student in college was when I confronted people who thought differently than I. And you have this battle of ideas or you have your ideas challenged. And so this diversity of thought in my experience, and it's been a while, you know, was really important for me and who I am and how I think today. How has, has there always been, was this an outlier? Has there always been diversity of thought and a battle of ideas on our campuses that I, was I just lucky? Or is that eroded over time or even recently? I'd say a lot of our research has shown that this has eroded over time with even more rapid. erosion more recently. Faculty over for probably the past 60 years of survey data that I've seen, faculty has definitely leaned left. And so that's been kind of the dominant viewpoint on campus, but there was still a decent amount of non-liberals on campus, maybe in business schools or engineering. But over time, those numbers have dwindled lower and lower. And with the climate on campus where students aren't presented with different ideas or perspectives where faculty who hold different ideas and perspectives either have to keep their mouths shut. or they can't ask certain questions or they just leave or aren't interested in joining the Academy. And I mean, what we see with faculty that we surveyed in this report is they're sharing with us that, I mean, these are faculty who probably were a little more willing to speak out and not afraid. And then they were just put to the ringer because of it. And I think that just compounds the issues that we have with diversity of thought on campus because if some faculty who are comfortable speaking out, are just pillored because of it, then some junior faculty member or a graduate student or even an undergrad might be looking back and thinking, wow, if this is what happened to that guy who's a tenured professor or who taught my class last semester, what's going to happen to me if I say something similar? And it chills speech, which is not a good thing for higher ed. Because like you said, you're supposed to battle out these ideas and confront people who think differently. kind of converge upon what truth is. We're talking with Nathan Honeycutty is with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. Nathan, all right, these students are these professors are called out. They aren't invited to the cool kids table anymore. Are they fighting back in any way? Or do they have tools to fight back on this? It's a mixed bag. So some faculty are fighting back. They do go through the process of pushing back against this, trying to protect their jobs and their reputation at fire. I mean, we're a national free speech organization protecting the rights of all Americans, especially with a special focus on campuses. So we've partnered with many scholars over time, faculty, postdocs, grad students who have faced punishment for their speech.

tried to help them, help them push back. And so, but some, some professors, they'll, they'll try to go along and maybe they'll try to apologize or, just appease those who are outraged. And sometimes that works in many cases, though, it's like they've been tired and feathered. And it's just an uphill battle from that point. So higher education, it's already, the bloom's coming off the rows a little bit. I mean, your student debt is just climbing every single year for students to get a degree. Job opportunities related to the majors students may take and what that competitiveness may look like. Many are arguing the trades and some other job opportunities are more viable and maybe less cost prohibitive. What is the trajectory of higher ed if there is this mindset that you can only think one way? You can only talk about political philosophy in one direction. There can be no battle of ideas. Can higher ed sustain itself and continue to be what it's always been in a climate like that? It's going to be difficult. And I mean, this is a related question fire has been pulling on over the past year and a half is just confidence and trust in higher ed. And we continue to see it eroding. And one of the things our data has shown us is that there's a strong ideological component here. People are waking up. And most people have known, yeah, faculty and campuses lean a certain direction. And yeah, some ideas are going to get more resistance. But I think more of the public is waking up to just how. bad it is on campus, how limited it is, how difficult it is for certain views to be expressed or just for people to talk openly and ask difficult questions. And I mean, enrollments starting to slip. Part of this is because of declining birth rate. And so I think if colleges and universities don't wake up, it's going to continue to get worse. And you have state legislatures that are stepping in saying, well, if you're not going to clean up your house, we're going to do it for you. And oftentimes that's not great because it'll kind of push things too far in the other direction. So, yeah, higher ed is definitely at a crossroads. And the sooner that they recognize that, I think the sooner things can start improving on campus and for the country. Nathan Honeycutt from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. Okay, our list back Friday segments coming your way next right here on Utah's Talk Radio 105-9. KNRS. All right. Our list back Friday segments, we do this every Friday where we look back on some of the issues we've explored and the newsmakers that we've talked to, Greg, and one that we talked about this week, and you say you don't totally agree with the interview that we did about big companies buying up homes here in Utah. You say it goes on. It absolutely goes on. And look, I think it's all down to the definition of what institutional investors are. I think that it might not be BlackRock all by itself. It might not be BlackRock at all, but hedge funds do it. There's real estate investment funds. That definition goes down to those that would purchase, forget what they sell, purchase 10 or more properties as an investor a year. And so it goes down to that number. And I'm going to tell you, I know multiple subdivisions in Utah that are.

being built to rent. Yeah. And it's by larger companies, not individuals. And that is, that takes away your supply of available single family homes, which is not a good thing. It is. We spoke earlier this week with Hannah Cox. Hannah is president and co-founder of base politics about this. And we asked her about Black Rock and other large companies like Black Rock buying up homes. Is it true? Yeah. Why not? It's a boogeyman. I have the same narrative that flies around me. I'm in Atlanta, Georgia. And what's interesting is Atlanta is actually one of the markets that sees the most of this kind of investment. And even then, it turns out it's a pretty paltry number. And for usual, the true culprit behind why housing is so expensive has a lot more to do with the government, both state and local governments and rules and regulations that have been applied. And then additionally, some of the policy that. The federal government has been involved with when it comes to our supply chain and tariffs and just the value of our dollar in general lately. But as a whole, it's a pretty complicated system that has created the problem. And I think that makes it a lot harder to address and undo. And so it doesn't really surprise me that people have picked out an easier scapegoat. You know, when you blame big bad companies, that's an easy place to put blame. It removes the partisanship. It feels very simplified when it comes to how you might address it. You know, you hear people say, this should just be banned. We should just ban these practices. But after combing through the data, that really wouldn't make much of a difference for folks. So, again, you're saying what we've all heard. Now, we do have some examples here in the state of Utah where subdivisions are being built by Homes USA, and they buy them with the intent to rent those homes. And we're seeing some of that actually happening, but maybe not with Black Rock. My question is, There was a recent article that came out that said a third of the new housing inventory that was out was actually already purchased or being invested by these firms, not by individual homeowners that would buy it. Any true? I mean, I was looking for this before the interview. I can't find the article itself, but I did come across it. I guess my two questions are, is that true? And if it's not, who's pushing this narrative? Yeah, well, I think first and foremost, I've seen some means floating around quoting that same data. I've yet to come across the actual numbers myself. So I'd be really curious to come through it and see what methodology they use, you know, what they're counting. Because one thing I have discovered is that there's a lack of understanding of just basic financial terms oftentimes in this discussion when people say. black rock and find up all the houses and you point to the fact that black rock does no such thing they're not involved in that business at all then people say oh well it's black stone and people are just confused but then you come in there and you know they do have a few investments into the market in these kinds of areas but as a whole it still equates to well beneath one percent of the entire market. And so then people start pointing to things like Airbnb. And so you really have to be precise with what we're talking about. You know, are we talking about an issue where you have these large companies that are swooping in that are buying up large segments of the market and then renting them back at exorbitant rates or holding them and preventing there being more supply on the market, thus driving up the price of housing? That is unquestioning not happening. We saw the American Enterprise Institute looked into this this year. And they found that across all institutional investors, so not just BlackRock or Blackstone.

institutional investors they own just 1% of the total US single family housing stock as of the summer so that is definitely not happening and and I think that that means we need to lay this conversation to rest now if we're talking about the fact that maybe you have a significant number of Americans who own one home as their primary residents and then they buy up two other homes, three other homes, and they rent those out, then certainly those numbers start to look a little bit different. I do think you have a higher percentage of people who are doing that. But conflating that incident happening with institutional investments, I think is really incorrect. And I don't know that it's necessarily, you know, a propaganda campaign or something that's orchestrated. I think that it's just a lack of understanding for the basic terms that we're using. And again, people looking for an easy scapegoat to blame for the problem. I think big companies, you know, often in America, for whatever reason, we've gotten to this place where big equals bad, right? If you're going to be a big company, you must have done really bad things to get there. When in reality, most of the time, if you've become a really big, successful company, usually you've done a lot right. You've made a lot of customers happy. You've provided a good or service a lot of people want. that doesn't negate the fact that increasingly the connotation and the perception around big companies is that they're evil and they're sinister and they're constantly looking to screw people over. And so I think this narrative just fits. And so people run with it. It doesn't really require a lot of intellectualism. It doesn't require you to do a lot of research or digging into data. You can talk about this in a way that feels intellectual and smart and sounds like you have all the answers. I think that's just something that people look to do increasingly on social media. You know, there's no fact checkers. There's nobody pushing back on people. There's nobody saying, hey, did you actually like just pull that out, you know, of left field or have you done any sort of concrete research into this? And again, when you do actually do that research on this subject matter, it's tough, you know? It's a really tough issue for us to solve because it is such a web. of state and local and federal policies that are actually anti-capitalists that are really screwing over average Americans right now. And it's both parties. And so I think that's a lot harder for people in this day and age to say, you know what, maybe my team's bad too. All right, Hannah, if the big companies aren't the big bad guys, obviously the government must have a role in this. What is the government doing that is causing all kinds of problems? Well, They're doing a lot. You know, this has been going on for decades. It didn't start yesterday. And so it tends to take a couple shapes and forms. We'll set the federal policy aside when you look into the supply chain and tariffs and just what they've done to the value of the dollar because that certainly is a big factor. But when it comes to things that people, I think, can have a bit more of a say in. We're talking more about your state government, sometimes your local government. And they tend to do things like have really zealous zoning requirements. You know, and oftentimes when you say that, people say, well, all that zoning's good. I don't want a strip club being built next to me. And, you know, yes, that would be a happy medium if that's all that zoning was doing. But that's not the reality most of the time when you really look into what these regulations look like.

They're going far above that. They're saying you can't put a tiny house in your backyard for your mother-in-law to live in as she ages. Or they're saying, you know, you can't have a mixed-use subdivision that have restaurants and some condos above them because there's a neighborhood around the corner that's zoned single family. You also get into a lot of things like historical overlays. This is especially problematic in a lot of urban areas. I'm in Atlanta. We see a lot of this, you know, where people decide that just because this building's old, it needs to be preserved. And they put these overlays in place and they have to go through these really, you know, overly zealous approval processes to get anything built to even renovate something and make it, you know, where it's up to. what you would want it to be like in modern times, much less to maybe tear it down and make it more efficient or, you know, start looking at building it on top of things. And that's often done because people want to preserve the character of how things look. This feeds into sort of the entire mindset that we often call having a knot in my backyard and ambiasms mindset where, you know, people tend to care a lot more, it seems, and practice about what the neighborhood around them looks like versus their neighbor being able to afford. housing and i i think that's the tougher conversation that we have to have is that people love to wax poetic about this issue and you know to talk about how horrible it is that we don't have affordable housing but when it comes to actually making the tough calls you're going to have to make that's when we see there starts to be some pushback and and that just simply is the reality you know i don't think things have to be ugly or have no character in order for things to be affordable But there does have to be a balance of that. You have to be a little bit less rigid in some of those requirements. And that's where we really have to start digging into reforms. Fortunately, there's a lot of states that are starting to do this. There's a really great package that's coming down in Michigan right now that's got bipartisan support that's sort of more in the direction of what we would say is yimbi-ism, you know, yes, in my backyard and starting to recognize that these have had really negative repercussions and they're happy. to be a better mix of how we approach regulating this and how we impact the ways that people build and the cost. Because when you are making it really tough to build, you're making it where there's long approval processes and lots of inspections. And then on top of that, it has to be built this much back from the yard. You know, what ends up happening is it becomes really expensive to build. And those costs get passed on to the consumer. And so if you talk to anybody. And the construction or the building industry, they'll tell you, like, we would love to build more affordable housing, but we can't do it affordably. And so what ends up happening is that when they do build, they build more expensive housing because that's where they can make a profit. On our newsmaker line, Hannah Cox, president and co-founder of base politics, I've talked to realtors, Greg. They see it happening. It is. And look, it might not be Black Rock per se, but I'm telling you that there's a smart. When I say smart, I just mean that there's a return on investment to buy houses and bulk. It's not the way the housing market's worked in the past, but it is the way it's being pursued right now by some, and it does have a negative impact. All right, more coming up on the Rotting Greg Show on Utah's Talk Radio, 1059 can't arrest. All right, something is truly scary out on the road today. 18-wheel drivers, the big truck drivers, who cannot speak English or were not properly trained to get their CDL. And we've heard horrible accidents over the last several months about this, and people are now trying to crack down, and they should.

Absolutely, they should. And I'm telling you, and I, there's no name given. I thought this might have been an aberration, a mistake, just kind of a highlight how people aren't paying attention. But apparently no name given is finding its way into a lot of states and their commercial driver's licenses, which even in Utah, there's signs that no name given may be very well a commercial driver's license being issued. Well, looking into this story, and we spoke with him earlier this week, Jason Hopkins, immigration reporter at The Daily Collar. He looked into the GOP crackdown on migrant truckers, and we asked Jason what he's found out so far. Yeah, so we've got a growing number of lawmakers in Congress that are looking to put forward their own bills that would really codify the Trump administration's reforms that they put forward. You know, right? So we've seen a growing number of... horrific traffic accidents on American highways, right? I mean, this really splashed on the news first in August with that one illegal migrant truck driver, allegedly, Harjinder C, took a turn, smashed into a vehicle, killed three. Yeah. I mean, just a few days ago, we've had just a nearly similar accident take place, right, in Southern California. Josh and Prezine allegedly got behind the wheel of a big rig, smashed into three vehicles, killed several. So just really horrific accidents. And the Trump administration, I mean, they're taking this seriously. You know, earlier this year, they put forward some English language proficiency standards, stricter proficiency, you know, English language standards. And then after the crash in Florida, they've put down a sweeping crackdown on CDL drivers, non-domiciled CDLs. And for those who know non-domiciled CDLs, it's non-domiciled commercial driver's licenses, largely applies to individuals who are, you know, not American citizens, they are migrants here. They would get that non-domiciled license. So essentially the new rules who make it work, I mean, they can't even get them, right? But the thing about this is that these are just administrative changes. And they can be rolled back because they have before the Obama administration. We had tighter English language standards for truck drivers for years. But that was rolled back by the Obama administration, kind of in the wing days of his administration in 2016. So really, I mean, the issue would be like, well, they've been rolled back before. They could be rolled back again, right? So it really has to be changed at the legislative level. So that's why we do have a lot of lawmakers now that are pretty important their own bills that would codify this into law. I spoke to, you know, Representative Mary Mill of Illinois, right? She's got her own bill that would codify Trump's non-domicile TDL crackdown. And then you've just got now just so many others. I mean, right, the day of the crash in California, Pat Harrigan from North Carolina, he put down his own bill in the Senate, Cynthia Loomis. She's having her own legislation. So, yeah, there's just a lot of lawmakers who are trying to answer the call here. Do we know why the Obama administration and its final days decided to roll this back? Was there pressure from the trucking industry? The old argument out there was, we need more truck drivers. Do we know why they rolled them back, Jason?

You know, that is such an interesting question because you're just hearing different things from different people, right? Now, you have heard in just, you know, days past association saying, we just don't have, you know, there's a truck driver shortage. You know, we need to make real easier. I've spoken to so many truck drivers. All of them are just saying that was just a bull crap reason that there's not a short. You know, you need to have tough English standards or you're just going to have what you know you've seen here, right? The guy in Florida, he failed the English stats. You can read any road signs. So it really depends who you ask. And honestly, I mean, now that we've had these new rules in place. We're not seeing any sort of issue as far as a shortage goes, if anything. Roads are safer, and we're seeing truck drivers, at least in some markets, American truck drivers, enjoying better rates. If, in fact, this new law gets passed, whatever form it takes shape, will it be up to the states then to enforce it? What can the government do to enforce states to enforce its law? What do they hope to see have happened here? You're diving into another really good thing here, because even if you quantify this into law, right now, it's still up to states to enforce these things. And that was actually a big issue still going on right now between the DOT and California. The DOT put for, you know, Sean Duffy, he put forward these new emergency rules on non-domincile CDL drivers, not that long ago. But it was before this driver, Josh and Prince Singh. was able to upgrade his non-domsile team. Now, California, so this was entirely on California. They were supposed to, and they said that they were following the new rules, but if they had been, his license would have been revoked when he upgraded his license, but that did not happen. So this is up to the states to enforce these rules. Now, you've actually got some other people. You go on these striking websites like Great Waves and such. They're saying really a great reform would to just be putting this at the federal level. It just needs to be up to them to enforce these rules, not the states, just for a more uniform policy across the country. How much final question for you? How much of a push is underway right now, either by the administration or backers of this bill, how much of a push is there right now to get this to the finish line? They want to see it happen. I mean, you've got so many of these bills here, numerous co-sponsors, they want it to happen. This does seem to be a bit of a one-party issue. You do have some people on the other side of the aisle, Democratic aisle, who are interested in frucking issues, but really as it brings to, you know, like overtime paying such. But, I mean, as far as the Trump administration wanting this to go down, they are very supportive of it. And a lot of these bills... They are being championed by the American Truckers United Association here. They're saying this is great legislation. They're putting their full weight behind this because it would not only make American roadways safer, but it actually helps the average truck driver. I mean, they want these roles in place. Jason Hopkins from The Daily Caller talking about the GOPs crackdown on migrant truckers. Well.

Time to head home. That's the end of the week. Watch when you're driving. It's that time of night right now that, you know, these kids, these little rugg rats that dart right in front of your car. Yeah, be careful. Keep the lights on, watch out all sides and especially parallel park cars. Kids come flang out in between. They're so excited. They get so excited. You've got to be extra careful tonight. Be careful tonight, folks. Well, thanks for joining us week. That does it for us. As we say each and every night, head up, shoulders back. May God bless you and your family. That's great country of ours. Happy Halloween. Be safe out there. We'll talk to you Monday starting a four. Have a great weekend.