Hour 1: More Seattle taxes, SPD staffing crisis, guest Matt Kaeberlein

Thanks for downloading the Jason Ranch Show podcast. I really do appreciate it. Be sure to check out our brand new website, Seattlered.com. News, opinion, analysis without any of the left-wing spin covering the entirety of the Pacific Northwest. Check it out throughout the day, read stories, share stories, and watch exclusive videos. That's Seattle Red.com. Now, back to the Jason Ranch Show. Coach, the yellow left. I'm walking here. Good afternoon and welcome to the Jason Rancho. We are here on Seattle Red 770 a.m. streaming on the Seattle Red app online at Seattle Red.com. We'll take you through an alarming new set of data that Seattle Police Department probably doesn't want you finding out. We'll tell you what that is. But first, get ready for new taxes in the city of Seattle. Except don't worry, this time they're going after business. Oh, wait, no, they always go after business. Oh, they're doubling and tripling and quadrupling down on business taxes. That's what's trending. Brought to you by the Sunset Auto family. What's trending in Seattle? They never seem to learn when government spending spirals out of control. especially in Seattle. The answer is never restraint. It should be restraint. It should be a general review of the spending levels, what they're spending it on, how they're spending it, the amount that they're spending. But in Seattle, the answer is another tax hike. The new political leadership. under Katie Wilson is signaling what many, many business owners in this area started to fear, which is that the jumpstart payroll tax was not going to be the end of the appetite for revenue from this city. It was always going to be just the beginning. And of course, We already heard the signals from Katie Wilson during the campaign that she was going to increase the payroll taxes. The jumpstart payroll tax was going to go up to what level we didn't know. But she was one of the architects behind that initial tax. Now the city is not quite saying specifically that they're going to expand the jumpstart tax, but in an interview with Como News, the new economic development director is out there not. ruling out the increase. Beto Yarsi is the guy's name. He spoke with Como. If the mayor was to come to you and say, hey, I think we need to expand the Jumpstart tax to offset this budget shortfall. What would you tell her? We are exploring based on the data we have these days that other opportunities there is no progressive tax at this time. We definitely need to kind of start thinking better on how to really activate our economic development plan beyond the Jumpstar and other progressive tax that we've been implementing. It sounds like you're advising not to seek any sort of expansion of the Jump Start tax. At this moment, that's kind of like just...

thinking of really see the data that we are collecting. There's a lot of office vacancy though right now. I agree. And we have been just very, very challenged since the pandemic. We have a lot of challenges with public safety. Yeah. So the last two points are important. I'm glad that he's conceding them, at least on the safety standpoint. But don't fall for the rest of it. We've got to look at the data. What additional data do you need to look at? We already know what's going on and we know the underlying causes of this. And so that he's not going to immediately say, we're not expecting more taxes, I think is the tell. And that's the problem in all of this. We keep acting as though businesses are these unlimited ATM machines that every time some Democrat in charge creates a new spending obligation via some new program that's being launched or they expand government payrolls by hiring a whole bunch of government workers. They eventually come looking for someone else to pay for this. And in a lot of ways, it's all of us who pay for it, even when we're targeting, the city is targeting the businesses specifically. But the employers are the ones who immediately pay all of this, that they feel the brunt of all of this. And the city should have learned what happens when it gets too aggressive. We talked about this, I think, last week. The jumpstart payroll tax, which was sold as this tax on large corporations, and they could easily afford it. And maybe they could. But what were we told by folks who were opposing the jump start tax? What do people like me point out? We pointed out that this makes Seattle less competitive because all you have to do is look across the water, across the bridge, and see a city like Bellevue. Or you can go into Kent, or you can go into virtually any other part of Western Washington and still get to say you're based in Seattle. Seattle, because most people don't pay that close attention out of town, right? If you're someone who's, you know, getting a STEM degree in Topeka, Kansas, Seattle is Bellevue, Bellevue is Seattle to that person. So you still get to say you're based in Seattle. I mean, how many times do we hear that Microsoft is based in Seattle? They're based in Redmond, but they still get the, you know, the ability to say Seattle for branding purposes. All they have to do is look there and say, yeah, it's way more competitive going there. They want me in Bellevue. They want me in Redmond. And so the companies are effectively encouraged to look somewhere else, which hurts downtown Seattle recovery. And, you know, Seattle City Council and the mayor's office at the time, and still they dismissed those concerns. And then reality shows up. And we saw the story from the Downtown Seattle Association saying some 30,000 jobs have been lost in downtown Seattle because of all of this. A lot of those jobs are Amazon moving thousands and thousands and thousands to Bellevue. They're making that choice to expand somewhere else. They make decisions not based on political slogans. They make them based on costs. Taxes matter. Regulations matter. Public safety matters. And ultimately, predictability matters, although in this case, they don't want the predictability of a Seattle city council or Seattle mayor saying, oh, no, aren't you predicting? We're going to give you more taxes. Yeah, we're giving you more. That's not the kind of predictability that they want.

We have Seattle piling on cost after cost, after cost, while, again, the competition in Bellevue or Redmond or Kent or federal way, they offer a friendlier environment. And, you know, companies are going to notice that. They're going to notice that. And they're going to take that into account. The city of Seattle treats this. in such a backward way. And when this developmental, or developmental, this development director, economic development director, Beto Yarsi, when he was asked about how to improve the business environment in Seattle, this is what he told Como. So what's the metric of success in six months, one year? for you, for your office for Seattle. Well, one thing is I want to change the civic narrative that we have. Like the Seattle is not open for business or Seattle is a very difficult place to start a business. So that's one piece that I feel like it's an opportunity for us to announce that is like, no, we want you here and we want to make it better for you. The best way for them to say that is with the promise not to raise taxes. At a bare minimum, it should come with a promise. Don't worry we're not going to raise any more taxes. Now, the best way to really get that message across is we're lowering the tax burden on you. That's what we're going to do. The reality is the jumpstart tax has been killing jobs of those big companies that are keeping Seattle alive. And that's why you see Seattle economically struggling right now. John Scholes, the DSA president, downtown Seattle Association president. He said the jumpstart tax has been a huge boost for the city's economy, but not the city of Seattle. Seems to have jumpstarted Bellevue's economy, not Seattle. Exactly. That's the problem. And if you read that report, my God, it's almost like he was writing it or whoever wrote it for the downtown Seattle Association as if they worked for Bellevue. Because it wasn't just warning Seattle about what's to come and what's happening. It was more of a, hey, this is why you should move to Bellevue businesses. Here's why you should move there. 1,800, 465, 8774-year text messages. Let's find out what else is trending. What's trending? A Jason Rantz exclusive. Seattle Police Chief Sean Barnes has been selling a recovery story for the department for staffing. And getting a look at the June staffing numbers exclusively, it mostly backs him up, but not as clearly or cleanly as he's letting on. The newest figures that we have exclusively at Seattle Red.com. are better than what the city posted during that post-2020 BLM defund police exodus, right? There's no doubt improvement. But the numbers are not the smooth comeback that the chief described when he was on our sister station just a few weeks ago.

And I was able to get a hold of the staffing document from the Seattle Police Department. And it's through June 17th. And it shows that the city has logged 41 separations. Meaning 41 officers leaving. And they could leave for a variety of different reasons. It's not just about, you know, early retirement or retirement. They could maybe move into a different agency. They can be terminated in the separations. But 41 is kind of high. And we expect that it's going to get potentially worse. This month when we have the full data and next month, we usually see because of the way their benefits work out. summertime increases. That's normal. But right now, we've got 75 recruits who have not yet been sworn in. You have 141 who are still in their field training. And the more alarming number remains the fully available and deployable officers who can do patrols, although they're not all doing patrols. The patrol numbers are somewhere in the line of 400 to 500 who are actually patrolling. but the ones who are fully available is just at 868 as of June 17th. And that's just a little bit higher than the last number we reported in the middle of May that was at 861. So they're not seeing a ton of increases there. Now, that number, to be clear, strips out the recruits, the students, anyone who's unavailable because they're either injured or on vacation or sick, whatever the reason is, they might be on the unavailable personnel list. But when you add in all of that, when you add in management, the more generous tally that the city of Seattle likes to use is 945. But again, that includes management. That includes the chief. That includes, I think he's like a 75-year-old evidence collector and the evidence locker. It's not... an honest number to look at when we're trying to address the actual problems of Seattle crime and the lack of staffing. But that's the number that they like to lean into. The pipeline. of new cops coming into the city is real. And it's why Chief Sean Barnes has been able to honestly claim momentum. It's hard for me to fault him on that public strategy. Obviously, he wants to make sure that the public knows that we're going in the right direction. But it also explains why the gap between his public framing and the patrol level reality is worth a little bit more of a closer look.

pointed out in his interview on the G& Ursula show on our sister stage in Carine News Radio that they've hired 78 officers this year alone and the number of officers who are leaving is consistent with what we saw last year. That's a direct quote. He says, quote, so last year we saw a record low number of officers leaving at 34 and that's where we are this year. But we're not. at that point this year we've already exceeded it and if he meant to say we're basically on point at that time year over year that's still not totally accurate it's not completely inaccurate like it's not egregious but it's not accurate because at the time he says they were up about 38 officers who had separated but that number had been stale for a few days after he made that comment or a few days before he made that comment he pointed to having 985 deployable officers but again that's leaning on management ranks that's leaning on training uh or officers who are still in training it's just not inaccurate number. The truest number is 868 patrol officers. And again, that's the context. And people should understand this. And the reason why I go into the weed sometimes on these stories, both on air and at Seattle red.com, is because you're being manipulated with some of the data points. When we say 868 officers who are available for patrol, that means we would be taking detectives off cases to respond to 911 calls. Or we would take SWAT officers off of their SWAT duties to respond to 911 calls. We're obviously not doing that. And again, that number is a little under 500 when you look at just the cops who are responding to 911 calls. And of course, bear in mind, these are not all officers who are on patrol at once. We're not talking about 500 patrol officers responding to 911 calls at any given moment. That would be tremendous staffing if we actually had that. Now, the city... acknowledges my numbers. Their numbers were that I got a statement back from them. They gave me somewhat old numbers. I don't know how I have access to more recent numbers than they do, but it basically backs up what it was that I was saying. And, you know, we're going into this in June so far with three separations. And what's today? The 23rd. That number is three separations as of June 17th. That number is going to get higher. The month of data is only half over, and summer is when we tend to see the officers laterally out to other departments. So the real strength of the recovery, as slow as it is, but the real strength of the recovery from police staffing will probably not be known until August. You look at June numbers, and if it's somewhat depressed, that's good news. July, if you see a big, you know,

bolstering of those numbers of surge, that's not good. And the department's going to try to spin that. They shouldn't. Now, again... I'll be the chief person to say, kudos to the SPD if they're able to turn this ship around. It's slow, but it's steady. We've talked for years with former Seattle Police Officer Guild President Mike Solan about how this could take a decade to truly course correct. Remember, the goal for the city was originally to have about 15, 1,600 officers. They then put that down to 1,400 officers. We're... lowering standards to become a cop in Seattle, and we're not even breaking a thousand yet. It takes time. There's no doubt. And I don't put this blame on Chief Sean Barnes or anyone in current leadership. The blame squarely on the former mayor, and that was under Jenny Durkan, and the former full city council. because they were the ones who pushed the defund police movement, which just completely ransacked our department. Let's find out what else is trending. What's trending? National. I was this years old when I realized the left does not commit any acts of vandalism. The reflection pool is one of those obsessions from left-wing media, in large part because they saw that Donald Trump was taking pride in looking at D.C. and saying, I'd like this place to look nice. And so he spent some money. I think it's $19 million all in on the reflection pool, a reflecting pool that, by the way, at the National Mall, that's been dealing with problems since the 80s. This is not an issue that popped up overnight. And it's not just the algae. It's the leaking of hundreds of gallons of water a day. It was a big problem. And so the president as part of America 250 said, hey, let's actually make this nice again. Let's give it so that you can see a reflection. And it is, in fact, a reflecting pool. And so he drained it out or he got a company to drain it out. Paint the bottom of the floor blue so that it looks more natural. Of course, there's some problems because even if the best of the best is involved, there's always going to be some problems. There have been instances in which the paint at the bottom has been peeling. The president has indicated that there is shenanigans afoot, that some of what we're seeing, a lot of what we're seeing, is coming from people who are committing acts of vandalism.

And it was a point last night on Sean Hannity on Fox News that was made. by Karoline Leavitt, White House Press Secretary. Vandalism is very real, despite what Tim Walz wants to say, it's an imaginary problem. No, it is not. It's a very real problem. In fact, I spoke with the National Park Service just before joining the show. They now have 17 police reports that have been filed in just the matter of a few days. There's actually been six arrests at the reflecting pool where, again, these deranged individuals, many of them longtime donors to the Democrat Party, to Barack Obama. to act blue that have been vandalizing and desecrating our federal monument, one of the most beautiful monuments in the world, the reflecting pool. And that's why President Trump is not going to stop with this effort. We're going to not only hold those people accountable, but we're going to fix the pool, continue to make it beautiful from this despicable vandalism just in time to celebrate our nation's 250th birthday next week. Now, the talking point from folks on the left is that the president's incompetence is... is the reason why we're seeing what's happening with some of the paint peeling off and the algae coming back, that the project was poorly managed, not that the president had anything to do with the project, but the people under him. And, you know, fair enough, you're going to put that to the person at the top. And that there's no vandalism whatsoever, none. And last night on CNN, I took what I thought was a pretty reasonable and measured approach, which said, I believe, based on at least some of the reporting of the people who got ticketed, that it seems like a lot of these people... are peeling the paint, thinking that they're just removing some disgusting paint chips from the surface of the reflecting pool that makes it look bad. Right? I think they're doing it in good faith. But this idea that there's not any concern of vandalism that that's completely made up is just really stupid to me. And it's intentionally so. I mean, Anna Navarro, it was on the panel last night. Charles Blow. was there as well, pretending that vandalism that's anti-Trump does not happen. And when asked for specific examples of me saying vandalism happens, they just completely ignored them. I think it's likely that someone might have committed vandalism given we just covered a story of 8647 in the one. Was that vandalism? You said it's likely. That someone might commit a crime? Yeah, a vandalism. What you said likely? What makes you say that it was likely? Because we've seen non-stop vandalism against this president and against Republicans for a very long time. Vandalism exists. It exists on both sides. What was just cut into the lawn? What was just cut into the lawn? I'm giving you an example. Literally within the last few days, we had stories about the vandalism against Republicans. I would love to know the answer to the question. You don't see graffiti. So your one graffiti is the audio of graffiti? Yes. There's only one instance of graffiti.

a stupid argument that this is the definition of gaslighting folks that you see what's going on and then they tell you what's not actually happening so the dude asks for an example i gave you an example from the last like what was it three days four days or so you had at the national mall the lawn 8647 was cut into the grass Now, unless they're claiming that the way that the grass was seeded incompetently by the Trump administration had somehow managed to get those numbers out, can we all not say that that was vandalism? Because the whole point of, you know, someone going into the reflecting pool, either dropping some, you know, chemicals in it that created this problem or using a knife to cut a, I think it was a 250 or 350 foot line in the base of the paint. Like, it cannot happen. I can't even believe it would go through your mind. How could you say that the fact that we just had, without any suspects, caught yet? 8647 cut into the grass. Like it doesn't make any sense to me. And it's not good enough for them because I said earlier on in the clip, it wasn't in that clip. But I said early on in the segment that I'm willing to bet a lot of these people were doing so with the best of intentions of just trying to remove the paint from the reflecting pool and weren't really thinking about doing any damage, even if it caused damage. And I obviously don't think that those people should be hit with vandalism charges. They can't just accept that and say, okay, there's some agreement here. And then. pivot to this concept that it's also likely that vandalism is being committed. Like in their brains, it can't be. That is an insane position for me to believe that they actually hold. I just, I don't think that they actually hold those positions. I just, I find it too hard to believe, honestly, that that is what in their heart they're telling us is true. It's unbelievable. Did you know, and this might be unbelievable to a lot of people, did you know that every qualifying new and used vehicle at Sunset Auto Family comes with oil changes for life? Yep. That's a value of what, $150, $200 each, up to five a year. That's going to save you thousands of dollars over the lifetime of your vehicle. So visit our friends at the Sunset Auto Family in Auburn and Sumner online at sunset autofamily.com. You are listening to the Jason Rancho. When we come back, a UDuff professor is getting highlighted in the New York Times. Why? Because a new study supposedly upends something that the biohacking world believes. We're going to get into it. It's Maha Tuesday on the Jason Ranch Show. The all-new Seattle Red.com.

Finally, conservatives in Seattle and the Pacific Northwest have a home dedicated to local news. When I'm out and about in Seattle or anywhere just because I like to go into the field. Conservative analysis and opinion. And the left is saying this is anti-democracy. Seattlered.com is a new experience for Seattle's conservative movements where your comments are welcome and we encourage thoughtful conversation and debate. This is the key piece here. Visit the all-new Seattlered.com. to the Jason Rancho. If you listen, you know, I'm into the longevity space and NAD has been at least something I've been thinking about for a while. So when a headline in the New York Times dropped, claiming that one new study upends the entire case for NAD, my first move wasn't just to drop my interest, but it was to ask some questions. Obviously, one study doesn't settle. everything. So I thought we would talk to an expert who's been studying this molecule and was actually quoted in the New York Times. Matt Caberline is an affiliate professor at the University of Washington and he joins me now. Professor, welcome. Thank you. It's a pleasure to be here. So if you could just set the table for people who've never even heard of NAD Plus, what does it actually do in the body? Yeah, so I think the best way to think about NAD is as a buffer for cellular energy. So NAD is involved in thousands of chemical reactions in our cells, many of which are associated with the ability of our bodies to make a molecule called ATP, which is the energy currency of the cell. So people have heard of mitochondria as the power plants of the cell. NAD is one of the key components that our power plants need in order to make the energy that powers our bodies. In this New York Times article, and I will say the body of the article was a little bit, I think, more... I don't know, sane and reasonable and logical than the actual headline. I think the headline was a little over the top. But it pretty much got into this new study that they claim upends the influencers who have been talking about NAD in the longevity space. And there's no doubt that influencers, especially the ones who aren't actual doctors or scientists, they have a tendency to overhype certain things. But take us through. What the study actually said and what you've been hearing from some of the influencers who are pushing NAD. Because the whole idea of NAD is that as you get older, your body stops producing as much and it leads to more rapid aging. Yeah. So, I mean, I think that you just nailed, I think, the biggest problem with the message that has gotten out by the influencers and even by some people with apparently impressive credentials. So the dogma has become this idea that NAD levels decline with age. And therefore, if we replace NAD, that will be beneficial for aging and a bunch of different age-related diseases.

The problem is that that dogma hasn't really been well supported by evidence in the scientific literature. And so what this study showed was that if we look in blood, we don't see in humans a decline in NAD with age. So that seems pretty solid. Like the study was very well done across multiple populations. I think that is a true result that in blood. people do not show a decline in NAD with age. What that doesn't mean is that NAD is not important during aging. It might be important in certain tissues. It might be the case that even if NAD levels don't decline, if we were able to add more NAD, that would be beneficial. We just don't know at this point. So that key piece I think is actually really important because. As someone who I read a lot of the articles. I listen to certain podcasts. I'm sort of a little choosier, I guess, with what I'm listening to and what I hear. And one of the red flags to me in this article, because my instinct is to say that one paper doesn't overturn. you know, any kind of other study just on its face or any claim on its face was that, and this is some of the pushback from some folks who are pushing NAD is that they weren't really talking about blood. They were talking about tissue. And that was to me at least one of the pieces of that article that I questioned a little bit saying, I don't recall, and I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I'm saying I don't recall any of the people I read or listen to specifically talking about blood. They talk about tissue. Well, I mean, this is where I think the goalposts move. So what I, my perception is those people who are trying to sell you on NAD have changed their tune because the data didn't match what they wanted to be true. Like they would be ecstatic if NAD levels declined in blood. It doesn't. Again, we can be pretty sure about that. We don't know about tissues yet. I think what I can tell you is within the scientific community that studies aging biology. There's not a lot of enthusiasm for NAD at the moment. And I think this is in part because there have been a lot of exciting initial results that didn't turn out to be reproducible in what I'm going to call NAD world. NAD is super important for biology. I don't want to suggest that's not true. I think what's unclear is whether or not these NAD supplements that are currently on the market or NAD drips that people are going to these clinics to get. have any value. They might. And I think they probably do for a subset of people, but in the idea that everybody should be taking an NAD supplement is at best oversold and might be completely untrue. And I'll tell you, I was just at a conference, the American Aging Association meeting where somebody had done a, what's called a metabolomic study in tissues during aging. This was in mice, so take it for what it's worth. and they did not see a decline in NAD or NAD metabolites in tissues with age. The problem is we can't really do that in people. Nobody's going to go in for a brain biopsy to see if NAD levels decline with age in the brain. So what we really need to wait on are good clinical studies in humans to see do NAD...

supplements have any benefits. And we just don't have that information right now. Yeah. And I think that's part of the reason why I don't take NAD. I'm curious about it, right? I hear a lot of claims on a whole lot of different supplements. Some supplements I take. And obviously I think that there's a lot of support for things like magnesium, for example, or creatine. Like those things make total sense. The NAD have been a little bit on the fence. But there are obviously people who swear that they feel real energy and recovery from NAD. Is there... A credible mechanism behind that? Or do you believe that that's a placebo? Or is it, again, one of those cases of everyone's a little bit different? Yeah, I think it's both, to be honest with you. I think placebo accounts for a lot of it. And again, if you're taking a harmless supplement, which, you know, NAD probably is pretty harmless as supplements go, and you feel better, great. Like, that's fine. There is a plausible mechanism. As I mentioned, NAD is centrally involved in many of the energy generating pathways that our cells use. So it certainly could be the case that NAD... becomes limiting for energy production in certain people who have, you know, mitochondrial dysfunction, for example, and that the NAD supplements would have a beneficial effect. What we're lacking, of course, is the solid data to say that that hypothesis is actually correct. So that's the missing piece. But definitely it's plausible that that could be the case. Is it fair to say you've built a little bit of a reputation calling out the hype around longevity? Is that a fair assessment? I think that's fair to say, yeah. I mean, I try. to take a balanced, evidence-based approach to this space and help separate the signal from the noise. Yeah, and I know you were the co-director at some point, or maybe you still are of the dog aging project. Yes. Okay. Yeah. They co-founded the dog aging project, and that project is ongoing. Yeah, which is how I first learned of you and the work at Udub, because I was always thinking that's the one space. I'm surprised that we haven't seen a lot of, at least in the world of the influencers, just dog aging. But is it fair to say skeptics can overcorrect as well, and that... Even in this NAD study and some of the responses to it, there might be some of that going on. I just, I don't necessarily know who to trust all the time because there's always that key group of very loud, more establishment scientists who always seem to say anything in the longevity space is just complete nonsense, which is also just not true. That's not true at all. And I mean, I align and agree with what you just said. I think this is what is challenging about trying to be an unbiased observer, right? Is we've all got our biases. And I think people like me tend to get very frustrated with the influencer culture, which spreads a lot of misinformation. And sometimes then we do overcorrect, you know, when data comes out that runs against the misinformation that's been spread. So I think that's perfectly valid. Where I land on NAD is,

There's a lot of smoke, meaning there are lots and lots of studies that are suggestive. There's also a lot of cases where the data has not turned out to be reproducible. And so I don't know how much fire there is. So I'm on the fence just like you. I want to believe. I'm just really waiting for some definitive data to tip me one way or the other. Is there anything right now you're looking at that seems to show significant promise that just maybe isn't getting as much attention, or maybe it's getting a lot of attention, but the data is not quite there yet, but you're pretty bullish on it? Yeah, I mean, I think, you know, I've studied this molecule of rapamycin for many years. We're doing a clinical trial in dogs. I continue to become more and more bullish on rapamycin. I continue to become more and more bullish on rapamycin. I think you may have heard of the new clinical trial that just started for partial epigenetic reprogramming in the eye. I think that particular intervention is going to be a while before that's available in people, but the ceiling is. pretty high, like the upside might be really high if we can do it safely. And then in the supplement space, you know, I mean, you mentioned creatine. That to me is a no-brainer. But I have become- 10 milligrams it is. What's that? At 10 it is. Five or ten grams a day, you mean? Yes, exactly. Yeah, I agree. Yeah, yeah, no brainer. Right, got the pun. Yes. There was someone out there who got that and left. I'm just saying. I'm intrigued by lithium orate. So, you know, we're talking doses that are way below the psychiatric doses. But there's multiple lines of converging evidence for potentially dementia, all cause mortality, lithium in the drinking water, and then biology of aging from some early animal studies. So, you know, when I think about supplements, I tend to be a supplement minimalist, but that's one for me that's kind of on the borderline that I've actually added to my supplement stack. I would say the data is not definitive. but the lines of evidence are all pointing the right direction. It's all super fascinating stuff. I hope to have you back to talk specifically about the dog aging project as someone who's obsessed with my dog. I'd love to see him outlive me forever. We can talk with Matt Caberlain. He is the UW affiliate professor, Healthy Aging and Longevity Research Institute. Thank you so much for coming on. I really appreciate it. Thank you. My pleasure. You're listening to The Jason Ranch Show. Back with more after this. The Seattle Red App, a new experience for Seattle Conservatives. It's usually you don't get this kind of thing. Listen live or catch up if you missed your favorite show. Trump told reporters, yeah, we're thinking about a little rebate. Send us a message right from the app. And what is that message? The Seattle Red app is also your home for news and opinion, all from conservative voices you trust. Are you sensing the trend? A new experience for Seattle Conservatives. That crowd that is influential enough. Download the Seattle Red app today.

Joe Biden was doing it out of malice and because he didn't actually want to answer any questions, which is why he never did. I think some of what's happening with Trump, some of it is undoubtedly malice, right? And sometimes he gets frustrated, doesn't want to answer a question. But I think it's more because it sets a different storyline that he finds more favorable to him. setting it up as going after the press and the press going after him. I think he believes that's better for his brand and reaches more of the MAGA base and it will result in them rooting for him more. And count me in that category most of the time where I do think that the press is out to get him. They're not asking questions in good faith. Generally. Do they sometimes ask really good questions? Yeah. Do they often ask questions that are important? Yeah. I also think that too. I can hold two positions at once. But the fact that, oh, they're not going hard on Trump enough. Are you nuts? Seriously, are you out of your mind? What are you talking about? They go nonstop after the president. Nonstop criticism. That's all that they do. That's all that they do. And so I completely reject that. What I don't reject is that Sunset Auto Family's warranty protection for life has paid out over $7 million in claims because they believe in taking care of their customers for the long haul. So stop by for a complimentary warranty health check. Nothing is worse than avoided warranty when you need coverage the most. They'll make sure that your warranty hasn't been voided. You just get more at Sunset. And people do like that. Sunset AutoFamily.com. You like how I made that seamless. Meanwhile, Many folks in left wing media did not cover this political story that is pretty significant, a pretty bombshell report. I saw some coverage in fairness, but something tells me if this were a Republican who was the subject of this piece, it would get a whole lot more coverage. Ruben Gallego, the senator from Arizona, Democrat, a key ally, a BFF of Eric Swalwell. Politico says he used campaign cash to fund luxury trips with his family and to cover his child care expenses. And they looked at campaign finance filings and a source familiar with his finances. They're not alleging, at least that we know of, alleging anything illegal took place. They're just questioning the optics of all of this. He has a leadership pack. that they say he's paid for trips to the Caribbean island getaway of St. Barthelome, also to go to Disneyland, Disney World, Miami, and Chicago. They say a source familiar with the spending told Politico that he would often bring his entire family along for these luxury trips and that he would use cash to pay for babysitting services. And that includes paying his mother some like $300 for all of this. The source said, he just spends his campaign account like it's his personal slush fund. He's using campaign cash to live a luxury lifestyle. They say he spent over $18,000 in, again, these are donations to his leadership pack, $18,000 plus to cover child care costs. And it's $400 to his wife's mother to hold on to the kids, to just watch the kids babysit them.

And he's not even denying the substance of anything. He's just basically saying that this is not a big deal. He put out a statement that says, this is not breaking news with the rising costs of child care and the burden it has on the budgets of American families. Democrats and Republicans and Congress and the White House alike regularly travel with their wives and children as is permitted by the FEC. But this is more. I think then what the average person is willing to accept. Small level stuff I think most people don't even really care about. But for example, they say for an event that cost over $37,000, it was a fundraising committee event. He used it to pay for tickets to watch the Super Bowl back in 2023 with his buddy Eric Swalwell. They recruited donors to attend the game, to have brunch with them, as long as they would give really high contributions to their campaigns or to their PACs. They say they each profited just under $8,000 for the event, effectively shuttering the joint committee after the game. So it sounds like this was a way to not just gain access to them, but also to pivot this into going to the Super Bowl. And he's obviously right when he says that there are people who are struggling to pay for, say, child care. Are the people struggling to pay child care looking at this and saying, oh, yeah, I would totally have spent the money the exact same way? Of course not. Of course not. And they're saying, hey, look, we didn't get any special treatment here. We paid for the tickets at fair market value. We were simply hosting donors and supporters in a, at a sporting event in their, in their areas, and they call it a common bipartisan practice. Maybe it is bipartisan. It's a bad look, no matter who's doing it. It's a bad look if a Republican was doing it. Again, the difference is because Gallego is the Democrat, this is not getting the same level of media scrutiny than if it were, say, Ted Cruz. I think if this was a Ted Cruz story, it would be lead story everywhere. And again, it has been covered. I heard it covered once on CNN yesterday. But that's kind of about it outside of conservative media outlets. They say in Fox News covering this, the source familiar with Gallego's finances told Politico that the trip to St. Bartholome was for his wife's birthday and that the trip to Miami where he racked up 9,000 in charges at a beachfront hotel was to commemorate his wife's birthday. So does that sound legitimate, that funding? That sounds legitimate to you? A spokesperson said that the travel to St. Bartholomey was part of a, quote, multi-stop political and fundraising swing. Uh-huh. He says the Miami trip for the senator and his wife, quote, attended several widely attended political events and fundraisers. But you also did stuff with the money for your birthday, right? Or for the wife's birthday, huh? Now, again, you're not supposed to use funds. for personal use or to cover expenses that aren't related to their campaigns for office. But setting up meetings so that you can argue that an entire trip was done for political purposes so you can get all this covered. Seems really shady to me. Seems really shady to me. And remember, this is a guy who wants to run for president. I think this hurts his chances. 1-800-4-65-8774-year texts. You're listening to the Jason Rancho.