 issues take one. I'm Tim Appichelle, your host, and today's title is... What is today's title? Well, I'll tell you the moment we hear. It's 2024 general election GOP budget debate. Hey, it's the election season. We know who our primary... Excuse me, our presidential candidates are, unfortunately, one being Donald Trump and the other is current President Joe Biden. And so like any election season, budget comes up and we will discuss that. Back in 1935, FDR introduced the Revenue Act. And in the Revenue Act, it proposed that anyone who was making over a million dollars a year would be income tax up to a cap of 75 percent. Well, as you can imagine, millionaires back in 1935 weren't very happy about that. They called it a stoke the rich tax. But FDR, he ran on that campaign in 1936. He ran on the Revenue Act. And you have to remember that the Depression was still in full swing even after 1929. And in 1935, people were still down and out. So guess what? FDR won the presidential election. He had a 60 percent popularity vote and he had 98 percent victory in the Electoral College. Only two states did not give him that victory. So it wasn't a bad strategy for FDR. Let's fast forward to 2024. President Biden just came out with a $7.3 trillion budget proposal. The primary aspects of that is he's going to raise corporate tax from 21 percent to 28 percent. And he's going to propose a rate increase for anyone earning over $400,000 a year. Let's juxtapose that to Donald Trump, who I don't know why did it, but once again he floated the idea of cutting Social Security and Medicare. So let's talk about the differences between the candidates and how they look at the budget. And we're going to do that with my two guests, my co-host, Jay Fidel, and my special esteemed guest, as always, Doug Crumpton. Good morning, gentlemen. Good morning, Tim. Morning, Charlie. Jay, nice to be back. It's good to have you back. Yeah, we missed you. And I know you get to travel to far off places in the world. And I'm happy for that. So if that's the reason why we don't see you, then I'm just pleased as punch. Thank you for coming back to us. Hey, Jay, you know, let's go to Donald Trump. I don't get it. We know that people who are 50 years old are the greatest percentage of voters in this country. They vote. And why would anyone in his right mind, well, there's the answer, I guess, why would anyone in their right mind decide to take potshots at social security benefits and Medicare benefits? What's Donald Trump up to? I think you got to begin with the apprentice. You got to begin with that notion of your fire. You got to begin with what he did on that show and how important it was to him and how he measured it as a metric of his success. And he was always interested in the ratings. And he was always trying to manipulate the press to cover him. You know, it's just, it's the old notion of spell my name right. So all I want you to do, take my picture, put me on TV, cover me in every story in the newspaper. So my name is a household word. And I think that notion, that strategy follows him around. So when he takes a position on social security and Medicare, it's not clear that he really means it. I mean, he's kind of, you know, keeping his options open, maybe he'll do that, maybe not. But what he's doing is disrupting, stirring the pot. He wants to be different. He wants to be disruptive. He wants to get our attention, whatever it takes to get our attention, because he continues in his strategy of getting his name out there, maybe making people look at him more than anyone looks at Joe Biden and therefore winning the election. So is he, the question is, is he really telling us what he will do? I think he's only keeping his options open. He might do it, might not do it. It's consistent with this strategy up to this point. So it would be disaster, you know, to cut social security. There are a lot of people in this country that eat on the basis of social security. There are a lot of people in this country that stay alive on Medicare. So if he did that, you know, those people would be in deep kimchi and their lives would be disrupted and maybe forfeit. So the question is, do they know what would happen if he follows through? And, you know, the answer is, I'm not sure they do. I think that the cult following is a greater influence than their own self-interest. So that they would not necessarily answer your question. They would not necessarily vote against him because he takes positions or at least expresses intentions that are not consistent with their self-interest. It is really nutcakes. Well, nutcakes is the right word. I mean, let's look at the opportunity for Democrats to construct some political ads, basically taking quotes right off Donald Trump's mouth this last Monday on CNBC. I'll read that quote in a moment, but does Donald Trump not give Democrats a wonderful opportunity to plaster his face in Medicare cuts, social security cuts, all over that 60-second ad? Yeah, of course. They should. We should. Rational people should. But whether that's going to work is an open question. Good for them. Good for the Democrats. But they have to be as strident. And I don't want to use the word disruptive, but loud as they can possibly be about this. So the message filters into those red states. Not clear to me that it is filtering into those red states. Okay. Chuck, I'm going to read you the quote. Again, this is Monday. CNBC to host Joe Kernan. And Donald Trump said this. It was a rambling response, of course. He said the following. There's a lot that you can do in terms of entitlements, terms of cutting, and in terms also of theft and bad management of entitlements, tremendous bad management and entitlements. There's tremendous amounts of things and numbers of things you can do. So not only does he repeat himself consistently, but he keeps it so generalized you can't get to the specifics of what cuts he would entertain. Your thoughts about Donald Trump and his floating the balloon once again, he's done this before in the past, floating the balloon of social security cuts, Medicare cuts. Chuck. Well, I think Jay alluded to what really is the point here. Trump is no athlete, but if he were Patrick Mahomes, what Jay described would be the fake to the half and then a drop back and he throws to Kelsey for a big gain. That's what he's always done. The challenge now raised by the point you made, which is really important, which the media continues to consciously ignore, is in the old days, the only way that we could tell if Trump was lying was to see whether his lips are moving. Now, we don't know whether he's lying or whether he's just not mentally competent enough to be able to form a coherent, factually related statement. Does it matter? Well, I mean, he has a track record now. Remember, I think this was in connection to the border wall. Remember when Donald Trump, no, actually it was a lot later than that. Donald Trump wanted to recall the payroll tax. And as you know, the payroll tax is a primary funder of Social Security. So not only did he want to delay the payroll tax, but he also wanted to make it a permanent cut. So that was August 8, 2020 in Bedminster's when he floated that balloon. Obviously, that didn't happen. But so this is not something that he just cooked up. Back in 2000, he called Social Security a Ponzi scheme and made comments that maybe it's not the best system available for seniors. So to what degree should even Republicans that support him listen to what he says today and what he said in the past? Do you agree with Jay that even his ardent followers won't pay any attention to this? Well, I mean, I'm going to go back to your core question is I still probably like both of you. I've seen no reason why anyone should listen to Trump at all. Does it really matter whether he's lying or he's just not sufficiently mentally competent to form a coherent, factually based statement? No, it doesn't. So his words are of no import. And in fact, you can see that in the polls because it doesn't matter what he says or does. He can say and do things that if somebody who wanted to date your daughter or your sister or whoever said them, you would never let him anywhere near your house or your relatives. But he gets away with them because ultimately he's so disrespectful to the people that he has portrayed as the other, as the enemy, the press, the minority, the educated. Yeah. So look at who he attacks. And that tells you. So I think Jay's right. For the Democrats, if they could come up with a simple, clear presentation by a working person, ideally women, ideally not necessarily white, it says, here's the comparison. I'm looking at the Republican budget. I'm looking at the Democrat budget. I'm going into the voting vote booth with this little outline of these six key areas. It's an easy choice. Why would they not do that? Well, I know that they want to put focus on this year's campaign on preservation of the rule of law and democracy. And that's a good thing to put your flag on. But that's not the only thing that Americans care about. It's the bread and butter issues at the dinner table. And it seems to me that if you're 50 years old or older, Social Security enters into your mindset quite a bit. We talk about how rational people would just avoid even listening to Donald Trump. He enjoys a 51% versus a 48% in the national polls over Joe Biden. So as Jay used to say, and then I've adopted Hey Pasa. See, but your points are really important one, Tim, is that if instead of using the platitudes and the abstract stuff like saving democracy, identify the elements of democracy that are most at risk and what the choices are. Okay, housing. Here's where democracy is at risk. Here's what the choices are. Education, particularly higher education, health care, right? Any of the other areas that people really care about connect democracy to key elements of everyday life and show how that choice is connected to the preservation or loss of democracy. It's an easy one because clearly every one of those choices for Trump is show me the money, right? If I can serve the people who are rich enough to continue to pay my legal fees, my judgments and my campaign expenses, and now he's got three of them back in 2016. He only had the one, right? His expenses are exponentially higher because they're running in three very, very expensive areas. Look at the comparison, housing, education, health care, transportation, infrastructure, employment, any of those. What's the difference if you choose Trump versus you choose Biden? Maybe the one of the things Biden should think about is, you know what worked for FDR? He had this nice, simple acronym. He was not Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He was not a guy who had survived polio going around in wheelchair. He was FDR, big, acronymic letters, okay? For Biden, that could work. I mean, Joseph Robinette Biden, J.R.B., it's not exactly a ring, but it's better than Trump. Trump's her DRT. That's the acronym for Dirt, okay? J.R.B. versus Dirt. That's your choice. I never, ever disappointed with your responses. Thank you, Chuck. You bring a smile to my face. And he's not even seeing your dirt. He's junior dirt. That's true. Jay, did Joe Biden, I mean, basically he's proposing to reverse the Trump corporate tax rollbacks during his administration. Joe Biden is proposing to raise that back from 21% to 28%. In effect, is he now inviting corporations to go against him in this general election? Not to mention all the business commerce business in every state. It was just a solid move for him to do just when he became the Democrat nominee for President of the United States for a second term. I want him to do what's right. I want him to do what's good for the country. If he takes that position, I'm good with it. On the other hand, from a political point of view, what he's doing is he's encouraging the 1% to put more money into Trump's campaign, which may not be the best thing. The FDR strategy you described, which I think is helpful to understand is no longer the case. We don't live in the 30s anymore. It's not simple. It's not the time of fireside chats where you can sort of rule the airways. In fact, Trump rules the airways. And as a result, with these media problems that Chuck described, people are, I'm not sure they're undereducated. I think they're overeducated. They're confused. They see contention on everything. They see so many issues hopping up and down that they can't decide what's right and what's wrong. This is exactly what Trump wants chaos. Then talk about choice of words. He will choose words and not put them in a sentence. That's the mark of the demagogue. You choose a few words that's going to get an emotional reaction. You don't say what it really is, and you don't say what effect it will have. You just drop those words on people and they follow him because he's choosing those emotionally charged words. But I want to add one other point that comes out of this discussion is that we've been talking about the self-interest of the 99 percent. Okay. And they don't really care anything outside their self-interest. I'm afraid the media has not shown them the way on that. And so, for example, we know that Trump is going to make government his own. He's going to take over DOJ and pardon himself. He's going to knock off all those federal prosecutions. He's going to take over FBI and have it work as his personal law enforcement. He's going to take over the Department of Homeland Security over and God knows what he's going to do with the border. And he's going to take the military over. Republicans are infatuated with giving the military almost a trillion dollars a year and making them feel good and never doing boots on the ground or at least not much lately. And so, I think he's been compromising and will compromise all these agencies. Now, the question is, do people understand what that means? They're more interested in inflation. And PS, despite Biden's assurances that this inflation is under control, you know, one of the big prognosticators prognosticated that we're going to have stagflation, like in the time of Reagan going forward. That's what we got. And I should also add that the Times reported that we had an increase in inflation in the months of February. So it's not clear that Biden has that under control. Now, people care about that, because it affects the law for bread at the market. But do they care that the DOJ, the FBI, the DHS, the military is going to swing toward Trump, swing toward the Maga Republicans? I don't think they really think about the implications there. And their civil rights is a result. He said he would wreck the Constitution. Do they really care? No, I think they care more about what a loafer bread will cost. He said he was going to give away Ukraine. Do they really care? The country isn't in isolationist mentality these days. I don't think they really care. And so, even if Biden gives some support, which he has trouble doing these days with Congress, that doesn't really persuade the great middle that Biden is right and Trump is wrong, because they don't care. They're not educated. So I think we have a major problem, Houston, Dallas, whatever. And that is that people don't know the difference. And all they listen for are those emotionally charged words. They have really no relationship with the good of the country in general. You talk to a small businessman, and he says, oh, I want my taxes to go down. What about all the other issues, man? What about the guy next door, what about your neighbors and friends and the people in neighboring states? What about that? I don't care. I want my taxes to go down. So I think what he's really saying is, hey, let's have a social disaster. Let's have chaos. And I alone will say that I can fix it, although I really can't fix it. And my last point is his big thing, including the border, especially the border, is to win votes in November and make Biden look bad. And he'll do anything and everything to achieve that, including those charged words, but including doing a set up position like he's doing on immigration and assistance to Ukraine and Israel. I find it for any educated sentient person, I find all his positions, Chuck, this is to you, all his positions are outrageous, but he intends that. He wants to stir the pot, and he's doing it. Well, what does that say to the independents of this country? Because they seem to swing the election and certainly swing it in the swing states. Do you think the independents are buying that story from Donald Trump and his lackeys? Some of them, yes. Some of them, no. This country, collectively, as a democratic entity, this country as a voting public is going to get exactly what it votes for. It's going to get exactly what it deserves. And you can make a pretty good case that it really doesn't deserve what it's had happily over the past few generations. It's going to get something different. And even if FDR stepped up and made fireside chats and made these appealing democratic freedom for equality, God, I mean, it's almost nostalgic to think about what he did. We're beyond that. So there's a fair chance we're beyond that. I'm sorry. And the only question is, and this is a big question, is there a group of independents? Is there a group of sentient Republicans even in this country that will surprise us and vote against Trump? And I suppose the old changing variable, and I totally agree with you, Tim, that we have a guy who's heading into dementia, and this will reveal itself. It is entirely possible, if not likely, that his dementia, his mental capacity will decrease at a rapid rate and we will all see it if that happens that changes the calculus. But I'm hoping that there are independents and Republicans and lots and lots of Democrats, even including some Democrats who I really don't understand why they say what they say, that would vote against him. I mean, really, Bernie from New England, what's his name? Sanders. I mean, he comes up with the stupidest things. And you know, it's so destructive to the Democrats. It's so destructive to Biden. And for that matter, it's so destructive to Israel. I do not know why he says those things. You know, talk about dementia. It may be catching even across the aisle. Okay. Thank you, Jay. Doug, before we go to some more GOP positions, I do want to run past and get your reaction to remember in the last election, Elizabeth Warren, Senator from, I believe, Massachusetts, she proposed a wealth tax based on your asset accumulation. That didn't go very far. I was simple to say that I think a lot of Americans, Democrats included, resented the fact that you're being taxed on assets that you own, have owned, and believe it or not, have paid taxes on it back to the time the asset was gained. So the fact that you have an asset sitting there and it should be taxed on an annual basis wasn't too palatable. So let me throw this out to you. And I know this isn't exactly the same, but it smells a little bit like the same. And that is in Joe Biden's $7.3 trillion budget proposal for 2025, one of the items is if you own assets over $100 million, you'll automatically pay 25% in income tax. Your reaction to that, does that sound kind of Elizabeth Warnish, or is this a new kind of sequel about how we tax the rich? You know, in baseball, you've got an infield like sports analogies, right? You don't know where that batter is going to hit the ball. You don't know whether what's going to come out of Trump's mouth is going to be dishonest, unethical, incompetent, or just plain narcissistic crazy. But those are the four directions he can hit the ball. Theoretically, ethically, they're all foul. Politically, they all should be foul. None of those should get him to first base. But we have an electorate whose error percentage is far greater than their fielding percentage. If there were a contest for the outstanding field or the American electorate would finish last internationally. So I don't know that it really makes a difference what he says or what he does. Well, I have to interrupt because I don't think I made it clear. I'm not sure I made it absolutely clear. This isn't Donald Trump's proposal. This is President Biden's. Yeah, no, I understand that. But whether the equivalent is true for the Democrats, regardless of which direction they're hitting the tax the rich ball, whether it's Elizabeth Warren's direction, whether it's Biden's direction, whether it's Bernie Sanders's direction, those should be fair ball. Because for the economy to regain any sense of balance, for the society to regain any sense of balance, some amount of economic distribution has to take place. The fact that people still don't understand the reason they're facing inflation is not because of bad presidential leadership. It's because the system has been set up for the people who impose the costs and the prices to essentially operate with complete impunity, completely unregulated. The profit levels of the major oil companies, the major retailers, the major manufacturers during and after the pandemic were exponentially percentage greater than they were during and before the pandemic. How can that be in a depressed society where people's earnings, people's income are depressed? But these guys' profits are actually exponentially increasing. So my question is a simple one. What's wrong with this picture? Democrats have to answer that question. Right. And they need to start focusing on it as well as just the loss of our democracy or potential loss of our democracy. Thank you, Chuck. Hey, Jay, something tells me before you became a CEO of Think Tech Hawaii that somehow you rub shoulders with those who are in the tax business. I don't know why I have that sense, but I do. What is your impression to a tax on assets that you've owned and continue to own that are not necessarily generating revenue, but yet it's a basis for taxation? Your thoughts? You know, I would do that, but it isn't up to me. Elizabeth Warren would do that, but it isn't up to her by a long shot. And furthermore, Joe Biden might actually entertain that because it may be in the interest of the country and the people in the country. But the problem is that, and he never mentions this. And if he does, you tell me. It's not only that you're going to vote for him and his policies and what he articulates in the State of the Union and on the stump. You've got to vote for Democrats who will support him in Congress. If we have another Republican House or worse, a Republican Senate, this is all completely impossible. In fact, a good part of what he's advocating is completely, totally impossible. And so, you know, he can get up there in the State of the Union and a lot of it is wishful thinking. And unless people vote for Democrats, if they vote for Republicans, we're going to get lockstep behind Trump. Don't they know that? And none of these, none of these social bills will ever pass. In fact, it'll go the other way. You know, and so really the question is, can Biden get people to vote for Democratic congressmen and senators? Well, I guess that goes to my question. Are these helpful things for him to propose in the 2025 budget that are not exactly the dreams come true in the minds of independents and even Democrats that, you know, and I'm not saying Americans just have $100 million sitting around that they've earned in the past. But is this a concept of America that Democrats and independents really embrace? And I question that they don't. Well, leadership doesn't mean just following what people embrace or don't embrace. It's showing them the way. Strong leadership is coming up with ideas that the public may not have considered and getting them to consider these things. So I think that the, to me, just me, that the winning candidate is the one who has a better vision for the country, who is decent and fair minded, who cares about all the citizens, not just a couple of guys who will fill his pockets with campaign contributions. And so it's okay for Biden to come up with this stuff. But I think he's got to say, look, you guys, this is my view. And if I'm given the chance, I will do this, but you have to give me the chance. You have to give me a working Congress. Vote Democrat across the board. Every time you vote for a Republican, you're voting for Trump to stop my vision. Okay. This is my vision. I hope you like it. If you don't like it, I'll listen to you. Maybe I'll change it. But in any event, I'm going to be a strong leader because that's what the country needs now. It's not an observer, not a philosopher. It's a strong leader. I want to add one other thing before you take me out of here. I think, and this goes to your perpetual point, Tim, about the media. Okay. The media has allowed Trump to create what I call an entertainment divide. Just like the apprentice, he is entertaining us with the reality show. And the media is watching it and reporting it every day. And I mean all the media. He is an entertainer. People have to understand that. It goes way back with him. And the question is whether the Democratic Party is handling this entertainment divide. It's kind of disorganized. And if he wins, it'll be largely on the basis of how well he entertained people. Doing a good job at that. If he loses, I guarantee, I'll bet a pizza to both of your guys. If he loses, it'll be close. And we will have another insurrection, whether it's a violent insurrection at the Capitol or a more legalistic one. But he is going to try to get in office either way. And so to him, just spell his name right and he's happy with you. I think this country is going to get exactly what it deserves in November. All right. Just as we did in 2016. So, Chuck, we've run out of time, but I just want to get a quick response. Speak it, and I agree with Jay about the entertainment factor of Donald Trump's candidacy, his campaign, and the media has fallen head over heels over the idea that it is entertainment, and they love to report it. What's the entertainment factor for the GOP wanting to cut school lunch programs for children that need it? That has been floated, and not floated, but specifically mentioned, they want to cut that program. Kill it. Kill the Fed program. They're thinking, okay, some block grants can go to each 50 states. They'll know better what children need food and what children don't. Rather, better than the feds do. Your reaction to the GOP's, how should I say, intense interest to cut a federal lunch program for kids that need it? That's a really good question, Tim, because I keep visualizing people walking into a voting booth and hoping that the sanctity, the privacy, the confidentiality of the voting booth will somehow create an atmosphere in which actual thought will take place, an actual understanding of what the important choices really are. If I could get every single voter to agree to put one little sign phrase in their mind, it will be, how will this choice affect your people? Good point. Excellent point. Tim, I want to add something to what you said. Your last slide. Okay. Yeah, you asked why would somebody walk into a voting booth and vote against the school lunch program? Well, the answer is that the people who know this issue, who know what Trump is saying, they're largely a group of people that doesn't need school lunches. The ones that need school lunches and all kinds of other benefits, federal benefits, either A, they don't know, they don't read, they don't see, they don't know, and what they don't vote. So this is a calculated maneuver by the Republicans. They're trying to get all those suburban moms who don't have to worry about school lunches to vote for them, thinking, hey, I don't want to pay for some other family's school lunch. I have my self-interest and my self-interest is I don't want to pay for the other kid. And the people who could use the school lunch, they're not voting. Alrighty. Right out of time. Chuck, your last thoughts. Go back to FTR. Remember, when you walk in there, whether it's a school lunch or not, there is no free lunch. Vote for the person who best understands that and understands if you want it, you've got to work for it. Okay. Chuck, excuse me. Jay, you get to find a word. Okay. I think it's about the media. Between now and then, these points that we've made and the points that Chuck has made and you've made and I've made, we would like everyone to understand them. But the reality is, we don't reach 330 million people. The guys who reach 330 million people on media, they're consolidated. They're huge. They're bent on profits, as you mentioned. They're bent on satisfying their directors and stockholders. And that means raw meat. It means following the entertainment around. And it is their holy obligation between now and November to try to educate people about these issues. It's up to them. And they could easily fail. I really hope they don't, but it is a fair likelihood they will. Alrighty. I want to thank my guests, our special esteemed guest, Chuck Crubton, for attending and with all these wide-stage comments. And, of course, my co-host, as always, excellent Jay Fidel. Won't you join us next week for American Issues Take One? I'm Tim Patel, your host. And by the way, if you like this show and what we've said or you think you'd like to watch more, why don't you just click down below and say follow? Or better yet, get your checkbook out, get your credit card out, get your PayPal out, and make a donation. Until then, until next week, Aloha. Why don't you give us a like or subscribe to our channel? Thanks so much.