4.16.2025 -- NLS -- McLean’s Flag Fight, Trump’s Second-Wind Strategy

On this episode with Neal and Julie, the conversation dives deep into current political tensions, with a focus on the Democratic Party’s struggles to present a unified and strategic front. Neal expresses frustration with the party’s repeated unforced errors, particularly regarding immigration and public perception, while Julie offers insights into the internal divisions pulling the party further left.

They also take aim at Boise Mayor Lauren McLean’s defiance of Idaho’s new flag law, sparking a broader discussion about civil disobedience, symbolism, and the perceived narcissism behind prioritizing certain ideological messages on government property. Neal teases an upcoming interview with a Boise City Council member to further unpack the controversy.

In national politics, they discuss Trump’s evolving political strategy and the lessons he’s learned from his first term, especially in dealing with bureaucracy and opposition. Tariffs, government waste, and the state of federal agencies all make their way into the discussion, as well as a critical look at how budget cuts could affect experienced workers in government roles.

They also touch on the shifting position of Democrats, particularly among moderates who fear the party has gone too far left, and the broader cultural battles surrounding gender identity and immigration. As always, Neal and Julie blend policy, personal observations, and behind-the-scenes anecdotes from both Idaho and D.C., making for a packed and provocative episode.

Let’s talk advertising. When you want to advertise on the radio, you call the station, right? But what about Facebook, Instagram, Hulu, Disney+, Peacock, and other streaming platforms?

You could try clicking around, reading books, or taking online courses to figure it out—or you can let us handle it. At Sandhill Media Group, we’re your local experts in both radio and digital marketing.

Visit SandhillMediaGroup.com today.

Sandhill Media Group
The Sandhill Media Group LLC consists of 7 radio stations in East Idaho

Disclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no extra cost to you.

Transcript

Hello. East Idaho, it's 807. Welcome to this Wednesday edition of the program. We have a. Let's been full. Let's just say our content cup runneth over. We have the attorney general of the state of Idaho sending a very nice letter to the mayor of Boise. I'm going to share that with you here in a bit. We also have the Attorney General of the United States of America earlier this morning.

Today, the Department of Justice is announcing a civil lawsuit against the Maine Department of Education. Okay, we'll get to that. Yes, it has to do with boys and men playing against girls and women in sports and the Trump administration. And after exhausting every other option is taking action, as promised. And it was the Maine governor that said, well, we'll see you in court.

And indeed she will. So we'll have that for you. But I have to, I don't know if this is a confession. It is. Maybe it's just a candid moment, but. And I don't know if this is good or healthy or right. It's just a fact. I have been somewhat obsessed with the downfall of the Democrat Party.

Like in a, in a very proactive way. I am watching what is happening to this party with unreasonable amounts of glee, and I'm not sure that's good. I'm not sure that's Christian. I'm not sure. And and I could argue either way. And if you've listened to especially my monologues over the past few weeks, I am. I am watching them self implode.

I'm watching them cannibalize each other and whatever metaphor or euphemism you want to plug in. You can plug it in. They are in a state of freefall and we can give a well, we can credit two entities. Donald Trump is one. They themselves is the other. Those are the two big factors in the implosion of the Democrat Party.

And right now, I don't know if Trump's baited them into it. I don't know what's deliberate and I don't know what's inadvertent anymore. Whatever the case may be, the Democrat Party has been baited into defending re and immigrating gang members deplorables back to the United States, people who the country at large believes should not be here. They're here illegally either he's a member of Ms13 or their ties to Ms..

Whatever it is. Nobody seems to be able to give the definitive truth in in all of this. But America's fed up with what the Democrats have done on immigration. So in this recognition, this self-aware ness of all the glee I've been feeling about the Democrat Party in such disarray, I had to ask the next layer why am I so happy about?

Why am I watching the news cycle nearly every day, watching the Democrats commit these unforced errors, not able to organize, not able to react, not able to come up with a cohesive response to the monolithic force that Donald Trump is in American politics today. And I think I know the answer. The answer is anger. And I know what Yoda said about anger.

All right. So that's why I approach this with caution. But in many ways, I feel like it's righteous anger. Without the Democrat Party, we wouldn't have boys and men playing against girls and women in sports. Without the Democrat Party. We would not have porn in libraries being pushed, even convincing some of our Republican lawmakers to side with them.

Without the Democrat Party, we wouldn't have partial birth abortion in America. Without the Democrat Party, we would not have had slavery. If we want to go way back without the Democrat Party, we would have had the Civil Rights Act long before it was passed in the 1960s. Without the Democrat Party and without progressivism, I don't believe that we would have the horrifically toxic environment that we have today when it comes to anything related to gender and anything related to race.

So yes, I know it sounds over the top, and there are members of the Democrat Party that I care deeply about and love, so I don't I'm not talking about your average rank and file Democrat out there. I don't view you in that same vein, but I will talk about the collective impact that that party and quite specifically the radical progressives that have, quite frankly, had them by the nards for the last several years.

They're the ones that have been inflicting the damage on our country and on our republic and on our system. So whatever glee I'm feeling is, in my mind, quite justified because maybe, just maybe, there's the sledgehammer that they've been taking to the foundation of our republic. We may be removing that from their their hands methodically and slowly. Julie sent me a video, Saturday Night Live, part of a skit where they were, like, it's shocking that Saturday Night Live did this skit.

I can't really play it because there's some really crass references in there, and I, I didn't get it recorded in edited this morning in time for you to play it, but it basically mocks the indignation that gay couples have when people start asking pretty basic questions about them. And I thought, This is Saturday Night Live, like they're violating some of the rules that they helped to create here, like they were part of for years.

The the liberal establishment, even people were commenting saying, boy, if they keep doing this, I might actually start watching Saturday Night Live again. So yeah, it's shifting and it's shifting back. The pendulum is swinging back to some somewhere in the neighborhood of sanity and reality, and we have so much more work to do there. There is still a long ways to go.

I don't want to give anybody sort of this false impression that all is well now, because it's it's not there's still a massive amount of work culturally to do, but at the at least we are now we we have the car turned around and we're headed in the right direction. It's still a long journey, but the the we're in the right direction.

Moving at, at a decent rate and speed. I don't, so I guess I don't know if you've been dealing with the same thing when you watch this and you see the power of leadership, the power of one, the the power that one person can have culturally. And I don't mean dictatorial, tyrannical power. I mean the courage, the tenacity, the sagacity that that one person can have standing up against a corrupt system that tried to destroy him, both figuratively and literally.

It's very important, very important. And we're seeing it play out every single day in the news cycle. And it is it is a stunning thing to pay attention. We're we're sort of used to it now. What are we. And like, you know, three months into the Trump presidency and almost and we have become rather rather kind of used to it.

But don't forget what historically an anomaly this is and has been. Trump knows we are we are three months into what hopefully will be a 48 month term. There is limited time and Trump knows it and he is. He is doing everything that he can to get America back to where it ought to be. And there are a lot of people who who supported look, you know, I there was a post yesterday, I am not going to I'm not going to out the guy.

He's a he's very much a Democrat and a lefty. I met him once or twice and I don't even remember. I remember I remember how I met him. He, Yeah, now I do. I don't have to tell you how I met him, but he's very much a, a left leaner. And in a post from a few days ago, he tied the Timothy McVeigh bombing in Oklahoma City almost 30 years ago.

He said you can draw a straight line between Timothy McVeigh and Trump. Did not bother to elaborate. Didn't bother to back it up. Didn't bother to explain. And I remember my initial reaction here. I almost commented. But I have a general rule I don't politically engage on social media. Typically you'll find an exception here and there, but typically that's not my thing because number one, I have this every day.

There's what I believe is a powerful platform. And that's kind of my outlet to to be in that in that space. But I nearly violated that rule and challenged him on it, because I think that that is inherently inflammatory and dangerous rhetoric. Secondly, it's just a flat out lie, this idea and I don't he didn't even bother to, to explain it, to back it up.

And but I thought, you know, this is a perfect example. What this person who I'm friends with on Facebook, this is a perfect example of why their party is in the place that they are, because they say flat out reject diculous ludicrous nonsense. Like you can draw a straight line between Timothy McVeigh and Trump. Nobody believes that except you and your delusional friends.

They are operating on old firmware from 2000, 17, 18 and 19 and part of 20. It doesn't work anymore. It doesn't fly and nobody believes this garbage anymore. So this is another reason why it fuels my glee when I see the Democrats not able to really come up with any sort of a cohesive response to Donald Trump. And in fact, they keep committing unforced error after unforced error.

And I'm going to be honest, right or wrong, good or bad, it makes me happy. We're going to take a break. We'll be back after this on a Wednesday on Newstalk 117. You want to join us on the Stones Automotive Group? Collin Text line that numbers (208) 542-1079.

It's 825 on Newstalk 107, I, Neil Larson, Julie Mason and, all of you all. And if you'd like to reach us, the stones automotive group Collin text line is (208) 542-1079. Giuliana I affair. We're lamenting about how our our minds are a little off today for some reason. Yes. Like you're not focused. Just kind of, I don't know if it's stress.

Whatever. Just a little bit of la la land going on in my brain. At least you know how it was so stressful filing that extension. My taxes. For now. I had to listen to my daughter and son in law. I have an argument last night about whose duty it was in the household to file the taxes. Oh, okay.

They think it's the others. Yes. Okay. Well. They'll both getting the auditors. They got a lot of years to figure this out. That's. That's true. Yeah. Yeah, that's that's true. Okay. Can I read this letter? Yeah, let's do it. I know I'm now calling, Raul Labrador and Mayor Lauren McLean, pen pals, because he sent her it.

He sent her a letter. Dear mayor McLean, as you're aware, the legislature passed House Bill 96 during the last legislative session amending Idaho Code section, blah, blah, blah, to prohibit cities and other governmental entities from displaying unauthorized flags, specifically those promoting political or ideological causes on government property. This law became effective upon the governor's signature April 3rd, 2025.

The law was written in a content neutral fashion and relied on the goodwill of elected officials for its enforcement. Despite this, the city of Boise is currently flying two flags in defiance of the law, as elected officials were all guided by the values and the beliefs that led us to seek public office. And at times, there might be state or federal laws that are contrary to our beliefs.

However, as elected officials, we have a duty to comply with the laws of the land. In fact, as the mayor of Idaho's capital and largest city, you took an oath to uphold the law. Even in instances where you may personally disagree. That oath is not conditional. It binds you and me to the rule of law, and it is essential to maintaining the public's trust in our institutions.

Though you are required to govern the city in accordance with the law, you have instead chosen to defy the legislature and by extension, the people of Idaho, whom the legislature represents, and to act as though your personal political views exempt you from compliance. This action sends a clear message that if an elected official disagrees with a law passed by the duly elected representatives of the people, she is not obligated to comply.

Government officials may hold personal beliefs that would be represented on flags with other messages, such as Make America Great Again or Don't Tread on Me. But after passage of House Bill 96, flying such flags by government entities is against the law. What if citizens of Boise acted as you have by refusing to follow the municipal laws with which they disagree, such as those regulating parking, issuance of building permits, compliance with building codes, traffic laws, gathering permits, etc. based on the same logic, how do you ensure your citizens respect for the rule of law?

If you are not following the law yourself? I've discussed this matter with legislative leadership, who've indicated to me that they will respond next session with strong enforcement tools against those who openly violate this law. Further, I've spoken with them about taking legislative action to deny state tax revenues and other appropriations to the city of Boise or any other governmental entity that does not follow state law.

Unfortunately, your actions have created public confusion about the duties and responsibilities of public officials and the nature of the penalties for failure to comply with some members of the public calling for your arrest. Although there is no express criminal or civil penalty provided for in this statute, you should comply with the law out of a sense of duty to your oath of office.

As Idaho's Attorney General, I ask that you reconsider your defiance of this duly enacted law and remove all prohibited flags. Sincerely, Rahul Labrador, Attorney General XL. Yes, that was not on there, but. You know, here's what the discussion ought to be. A retroactive penalty for violating this law. Oh, I didn't even think about that. But you could do that.

Just say this law will be retroactive to the day it became effective, which is April 3rd, 2025. And so every day that can be documented that she's flying the rainbow flag and there's another flag that there, there's two flags that she's put up that, you know, you get dinged a thousand bucks a day for that and, and, see how much you care about breaking the law.

I did like in the letter that Raul Labrador listed that, you know, examples of flags that we shouldn't be flying. And then he gave to what would be considered conservative Republican flags. So the the message being sent there is this is not this has nothing to do with the LGBTQ community. What it has to do with is representing somebody other than the city.

And that's your job, as the mayor represent the city. You're not there to represent personal beliefs. Yeah, you know it. It's interesting. Let me make this analogy, Julie. You correct me if I'm wrong, but we get irritated when LeBron James uses the NBA to propagate his radical political ideas because it just feels wrong, because you are utilizing a platform that you don't own in order to inflict your opinion.

A high profile platform, by the way, to inflict your opinion on other people. Mayors don't own city infrastructure. They don't own the flagpole. They don't own city hall. It's not their prerogative to use City hall and the flagpole of City Hall to propagate some political cause that they may personally be passionate about. I, I this is no different than when we've had this conversation before this ordinance was signed into or this bill was signed into law about classrooms.

Teachers don't own the classroom that they teach in, you know, hey, you don't get to just make it your own little personal political agenda inside that classroom. You don't own it. This mayor does not own the city or the city physical structures. You don't own the city. I could say that to her. You're there to facilitate, or to help with budgets or to make sure that the police are funded or somebody's got to oversee all of that.

We're not there to hear your personal opinions. Yeah, yeah. And, we'll see. So far I have not seen her respond at all publicly. Not on social media, not at a press conference. Not in an interview. I'd like to know what her position is on this. Explain why you're you're defying the law. I think probably the biggest middle finger she gave.

And I don't know what this had to do with anything, but apparently somewhere along this pathway, maybe, like day two of the flag supposed to be down, she sent somebody out there and they took down the slightly weathered version of the Lgbtiq flag and put up a brand new one. Oh, okay. So I think that was her way of going.

I'm not only going to defy this law, I'm going to put the best flag I have possible. She's doubling down and. Yeah, without saying a word. Okay. All right. We could do a flagpole, sort of a 30,000ft flashbulb. Because are there moments when you do defy the law? Now, we had. By the way, sorry to to cut you off.

We have a religious belief that says we obey the laws of wherever we live, like, that's that's baked into our religious doctrine. You and I left a job almost exactly five years ago. In four days. It was five years ago. We left because we were challenging the governor's order to stay at home. And the other Covid restrictions that were being put in place.

I don't view those as laws because they weren't passed by the legislature. They weren't they weren't put into place in the same way that we view laws. So is there a time, a, you know, to to stand up when a law you feel is unjust in defiance of it? Where I would draw the line on these two things is that personally, you get to decide that, right?

We we decided that job wasn't good for us personally, I admittedly, on this show drive faster than 80mph on the speed limit. Usually on the freeway usually. Yeah. So that's my personal choice. What she's doing here is making a choice to defy a law as a civil servant, as somebody who was elected. She's defying a law and making a decision with government funds, government facilities, government, everything.

That's where you draw the line. I personally get to decide what laws I'm going to keep and what laws I'm not going to keep, and they most of those laws affect me. Sometimes my decisions might affect others if I choose to not obey, the law against drinking and driving, I might end up hurting somebody. It's still a personal choice with my car, though.

You know, you're doing it on a personal basis. Sometimes it has ripple effects to other people. This is a law she's disobeying that affects the entire city. Yeah, yeah. Yes. That's true. It's it's not her law to break. No. Yeah. That's a that's a good point. I will say and this gets to be a tricky, tricky situation because, I think Rosa Parks was violating the law.

I think that, you know, the the lunch counter, was it in Montgomery? That was in violation of laws. So there are times when you stand up against the law, and people who do are hailed as heroes. I don't think this is that time I. Well, I'll ask it this way. Does a flag flying at City Hall in Boise, make life better for anyone?

Like, in a material way? Not some symbolic, feel good motivational poster kind of way. I mean, does it grant any rights that are being denied anything tangible or substantive? Does that rainbow flag flying at Boise City Hall actually do anything? It's nothing but a signal. Yes. That's all it is. And it and quite frankly, she it's a very selfish platform to her to use to to virtue signaling.

Yeah, yeah. All right. Let's go to the phones. Hi, caller. How are you today? So my, my thing on this agreement for, when Same-Sex marriage just came out and there was the, city clerk or whoever it was back east somewhere that, didn't want to issue the marriage certificate for the marriage license. Yes. And then the court came out, said, no, it doesn't matter what you believe.

You got to do it because that's the law. Yeah. And I agreed with that ruling. That's what the people voted for. That's what happened. You do that. So, I, you you're representing the as an elected official, you're representing the government. That's the government. They voted for. That's how you have to respond. And you should not be doing anything or displaying anything.

We're saying anything that divides people. Yeah. You know. Yeah. You know what? That's a great analogy to, to this. And I remember when all of that was happening, that was what, ten years ago, something like that. I took a lot of heat because I had this exact take that the correct reaction. If you can't issue, a marriage certificate is to resign your position.

It's not to to not keep the law. So yeah, I yeah, that brought back a few memories. Anyway. Go ahead. Caller. So yeah. No that's that's what I that was my point was your it's not about your opinion at that time. It's about what the law is. Yeah. Yeah. Good point. Yeah. All right. Thank you for the call.

(208) 542-1278. You also had the, people who were answering your question. The difference between mayor McLean and Rosa Parks is that Rosa Parks was not an elected person. That's true. She never took an oath. A public oath. Yeah, yeah. Okay, let's go to the, the next caller. Welcome to the show caller. How are you doing? Well, thank you.

So, and good morning to both of you. Yeah. So, you know, the message that I have for people that are supporting the raising of that flag, especially members of that specific community that identify with that flag. My question is, why you what makes you so special? Why do you get to fly your flag? What makes your flag so much more important than all the other people that in this world feel slighted?

Why do these? What, like people, don't they get the flag? Black lives matter. Why not their flag? What makes that one so special? Why do you get to again? What's the narcissism narcissism that makes you feel like you you get to fly your flag? There's a lot of other people that feel slighted in this country. Other demographics. Why yours?

What makes you so freaking special? It frustrates me so much. Ultimately, it's just it's just narcissism and pride. Yeah. When they call it a pride flag, like, I'm sorry, it's like pride. Like, isn't that like it's in the name? Yeah, it's the irony is just so strong with it. But that's that's what I want to get answered is why do you feel so special that you feel like kind of all the flags that could be out there, you feel like yours is the one that needs to be up there.

Really? Yeah, I know, I know that. Thank you. I appreciate that that point. Fly the flag in your window at home, put a bumper sticker on your car, go out and march in the stand on the corner in your spare time with a sign holding that up. But but that that is a great point. Why do you have that prerogative to raise that flag on that flagpole at that city hall?

What? Why is that? Why does mayor McLain think that's her prerogative to do that? Yeah, I for me, this this, fight that she's putting up there is not a valid fight. She doesn't have a right to do this, whether there's a law or not, a law. I don't think she has a right to do this because she's.

She's imposing her personal opinion on the entirety of the city. As the mayor, she's using her position of authority to to push her opinion on everybody else. It's now been made into a law. I, I just don't understand why she gets to disobey or obey laws. I understand we can't do anything to stop her at this point, because the way the law was written, there is no mechanism.

You you can't do anything. Yeah, that's that's true. So it and, Raul Labrador explained that in the letter. It's kind of a rock and a hard place. Right. So what he did was say, don't you have just an ethical responsibility? That's what he asks her in the letter. Yeah. Don't you just have a code of ethics by being a public servant that you are supposed to obey the laws?

Yeah. And that's the question that needs to be asked over and over again. I feel like that's the thing that's been missed through all of this. Yeah. That's true. Like just a sense of your oath to uphold the law. That should be enough. You shouldn't have to live under fear of crime like a criminal penalty or civil penalty.

Just the fact you took an oath should be enough. All right, let's go to our next caller. Welcome to the show. Hi. It's me. It is you. Yes. Hi. It's the mayor is not the only player in the city council could put it on the table, put it on the agenda and force a vote. The council has the power to, veto the mayor and any for actions.

Yeah, so that the council, it goes to the council next and my opinion. So here's my question though. And you're right. You're absolutely right. I and I hope the Boise City Council does take this up. But even if the Boise City Council passed a measure supporting the mayor, they're still in defiance of the law. Absolutely. So. But you've got seven, seven folks who are now, it's not just the first person to to to stand up.

It's the second person to stand up to actually. Yeah. Validate or negate, any action in public or private. It's it's the second, the second party that's actually the bravest to say yay or nay, but that's my opinion. Yeah. No, thank you for the call. I appreciate that. And now the onus is on the Boise City Council that'll be interesting that I actually really appreciate this phone call because you one mayor doing this it she can be turned into a hero as you add deeper layers to it.

People start feeling a little bit pushed around. Does that make sense? Yeah. And so if the city council backs her up, you're forcing the hand of everyone to say, do you agree with this woman? Do not agree with this woman. I, as a political opponent of anybody who's involved in and any city office or county office, I would be asking that question.

Do you support her in disobeying the law? Yeah, that would be a regular question I would ask of any elected official in the Boise area. Well, that's true because if they have the power to stop it, then some of the onus is on them or call her out. Yeah, it's what we ask of people who see a bully at a school gym.

Call them out and say, stop it. Don't do that to that person. Okay, so let me extend let's add to this discussion a little bit. We do have to take a break here very soon. But what about the Boise City attorney? I mean, should the whoever it is I have no idea. I don't know Boise City politics well enough.

I just know mayor McClain. It can the Boise City attorney stand up and say, mayor, you can't do this. You're in violation of the law. And in a future context, it puts the city, perhaps from a fiduciary standpoint, it puts us at risk. We could have penalties, for, for doing this. I think that's another great question to ask.

Like I said, anybody who's a source associated with this, whether elected or like the city attorney, I would just start asking every single person, take a side here, you know, and when that pressure starts to mount, she will have to change. Right now, she's a she's kind of a folk hero. Yeah. That's true. You you increase that pressure, it becomes much harder.

That's true. And this is an issue we need to go on offense on. 845 Newstalk 179 bottom. Our news a little late but here it is.

All right. It's 852 on Newstalk 1079. So we are we're going to reach out to a member of the Boise City Council to see if we can get them on for tomorrow to talk about this particular issue. You know how I would frame this, I would frame it like, at least from my vantage point, maybe this is very self-serving is sometimes instead of defying the law, you're actually having to choose between two conflicting and contradictory sets of the law.

So anyway, Julie, how are we? I'm doing well. How are you? I'm. I'm good. We actually have to take a break here. Very quickly again, but, yeah. All good. I was just out, greeting Congressman Simpson. Oh, great. Yes. Okay. Yeah, well, we look forward to having him in studio with Be great in the 9:00 hour. All right.

We'll be back right after this.

It's 855 on Newstalk 1079 saw then as I ride my bike last night, Julie, and saw the neighbor turning his water on his sprinklers and, I don't even have mine turned on yet. And I thought, now's the time, it's ditch. I don't know if there's supposed to be a race for that or not. Like my lawn doesn't look like it means that it's super green and lush.

And, because last year I did the four step lawn program. I've already got step one of the of the four steps down for this year, and it just works. It's super easy, super simple, and it just works. We wouldn't talk about it if it hadn't worked. And both of our lawns look fantastic thanks to that. But it's more than that.

A town on country gardens. You get all your seeds, you can get your mulch, you can get your trees, your shrubs, you can get potted plants for inside your house. Don't just beautify the outside. You can. And they have so many varieties of indoor plants at, town and country Gardens. Also on the 26, they have an upcoming event.

It's a new variety of plant. It's yeah, it's the glow in the dark petunias that are available. And you can go to my garden wkyc.com again. That's my garden Wkyc.com you can learn all about that event. It's called the Firefly Petunia. And that event is from six until 9 or 10 late into the evening. But there's going to be food, there's going to be music.

It's going to be a big deal. And you're going to want to go. You'll have a chance to buy. At least they have a limited supply, but you'll have a chance to buy one or 2 or 3. I think there's a limit of three of these glow in the dark petunias. So 26 that Saturday. Yeah, yeah. Get in there and enjoy that new variety.

Plus get all of your needs. The four step lawn program, everything else. Town and country garden south of Idaho Falls on the Yellowstone Highway, across from the beer plant. Okay, Julie, we have Congressman Mike Simpson. He's in the house. Yes, as they say, and waiting in our green room, for the lobby. Whichever. Whatever you want to call it, we call it the green room around here.

It just sounds a little more, you know, upscale, but, he'll be joining us in the 9:00 hour lot to talk about with, Trump world and tariffs and, the now, you know, we've got, lots of action happening in the Department of Justice, the FBI, the Department of Education. And, we'll get Congressman, it's not been a quiet few months in, in DC.

There's plenty of things to hit on. I'm sure that he's going to have, a lot to say. If you would like to shoot us your questions, you can do that via text on the Stones Automotive Group. Call and text line (208) 542-1079. And, we do it this way so we can combine questions. They come in sometimes 3 or 4 people want to ask the same thing.

So yeah, we'll do that. And, we'll have the congressman in less than ten minutes away from right now on Newstalk 1079 stimulating talk for East Idaho.

Our two underway here on Newstalk 1079. It's Neil Larson along with Julie Mason, and we are pleased to be joined in studio this morning by Congressman Mike Simpson. And, Congressman, always good to have you in. How are things right now? You're good. I mean, Idaho. Yes. Anytime and anytime I'm in Idaho. It's a good day. Yes.

And it's, reset congressional work period. Is that what they call it here? They it's it's a it's actually the, Easter Day recess, which is a two week period, but it's also a district court period. Most people don't come home and just take off. We do things, in the district and, and that kind of stuff. Okay.

So one of the questions that I had, I'd love your answer on this, Julie and I had an affair we had might have been on the air. Bernie and AOC are going out doing these rallies together, and we're thinking they are currently sitting members of the US Congress. Bernie in the Senate, AOC, one of your colleagues in the House, how do they have time to do this nationwide tour when there's a busy congressional session underway?

Well, that's kind of interesting. If I was there constituents, I would be a little wondering why, but they're not coming home and, working in their district instead of going all over the all over the country. But they're trying to be the voice of the Democratic Party. They're trying to move, as leader, leaderless as the Democratic Party is right now.

All of these different individuals are trying to be the voice for the party and move the party in their direction. And Bernie and AOC, obviously their plan didn't work, last year. And so my feeling is, is let him be the voice of the party. Yeah. If I was Democrats, I'd be a little worried. And there are a lot of Democrats that I know that are friends that are a little worried about where the Democratic Party is headed and think it needs to move back towards the center and stuff, because they went way too far to the left.

Yeah, but they're kind of cannibalizing themselves right now because they're all trying to do their own thing. There's no there's no unison right now in the, in the Democrat Party. Well, you know, and while we have to be unified because we have such small majorities in the House and in the Senate, we still have conflicts within our own conference of the far right, versus the conservative versus the more moderate Republicans.

So that happens within parties. But we are in the majority. You got to work it out in the when you're in the minority, you can go out there and do your own thing. Would you say, because I I'll say with with Speaker Johnson, he's disappointed me before, but he's also impressed me before a lot. Overall, how would you how would you grade?

Mike, you've been through a few speakers now. How would you how would you rank him? I think under the circumstances that we have, he's done the best job of any speaker. I've, I've been really and you're like good friends with John Boehner too, right? I mean, that's okay, John being a lie, John didn't have nearly the, the problems that, that we had that we have now was only, what, a four seat majority now or something like that.

John didn't have that. John had more Republicans on his side. So it was easier to for him to govern. And he was a good speaker. But I think Mike's done an incredible job. He's pulled off three miracles with bills that nobody was thought we could pass him. Let's talk about that, that budget resolution. Did you feel like it had the things in it that you were hoping, and that it is a truly a victory to get it as far as it it is gone, or were you hoping for so much more because when you were here last time, you were hoping, I think, for the complete end goal of having a balanced budget.

Obviously we didn't get there, but we did get something in the middle. So give us your your take on that. You got to remember this. Continuing their not continuing resolution, the, budget resolution doesn't b doesn't have to be signed by the president. This is something that Congress does. It's not a law. It's just a resolution. And it sets the goals for what you plan on doing during the budget.

The House has an easier time passing it than the Senate does. And consequently, the whole goal of the budget resolution is to actually get us to reconciliation. It sets goals and everything, but they're not like written in law or anything. But it says in this that we're going to try to find savings in different areas. And the committees then have to go out and try to do that.

The various committees, the Senate bill, the Senate budget resolution, was not what anybody in the House wanted. But that doesn't stop us from trying to go to those to achieve those goals. And you have to remember what the Senate has to do. They have to get 60 votes to pass it. So, that gets us to budget resolution.

And that is the important thing. That's where we can extend the Bush tax cuts. And there are certain rules about what you can and can't do in a budget resolution, but it only takes 50 votes in the Senate to pass, which is the important thing. So we can we can start writing that right now, which is what they're doing.

And the, authorizing committees will be looking at the savings that they have to create in various areas and stuff. Now, people in there say, you know, we're going to, the standard line of of the Democrats right now. And I hear it every time I turn on the TV is that we're coming after your side. The Republicans are coming after your Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid.

That's just pure nonsense. Anybody, as I said earlier, anybody that thinks that I'm going to cut my mother's Medicare or Social Security, he doesn't know my mother. Yeah. I mean, you know, we're not we're trying to save these programs. We're trying to cut waste, fraud and abuse at it. And if we don't get that cut out of it, it makes the the program more expensive and makes it harder to keep up with.

And so we got to cut it back. But anybody and I will repeat this again. Anybody that qualifies for Social Security or qualifies for Medicare or qualifies for Medicaid is not going to be denied service. That's not our intent. No, it will. And it's a weird narrative to me for them to take because if somebody is fraudulently taking Social Security payments or Medicare payments, that's a risk to the to the legitimate recipients of those programs.

It's a it's a risk to the whole program. And it needs to be you're saving it. You're not you're not jeopardizing is it's just a weird it's a I guess it's another example of the Democrats just creating a completely dishonest narrative because they hate Donald Trump. Well, this is their standard, standard operating procedure when they can't find something to argue about or to complain about or whatever, and they can find a lot of that stuff to complain about, but they always fall back on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, as if we want to get rid of them.

That's absolutely not true. Yeah. Okay. Congressman, Washington is moving at the speed of Trump. It is at in your time in Washington, have you ever seen anything like what we've seen the last almost three months? I don't think anybody's ever seen it. I can't remember a time even. I'm kind of a history. Not I can't remember of a time when any president has done what, what Trump has done in the first 100 days of his, his presidency.

I think when I look back at it, I think Trump learned from his first four years, he came in thinking things would be a little easier to get along with. And the first thing he faced was the Russiagate. You know, the hoax that was put on that went on for four years and all the other stuff that went along with that.

I've never seen a president during the first time attacked like he was, and I think the four years he sat out, he said, okay, how would I do things differently? And he realizes that those first hundred days are very important days, to get to do some of the major things you want to do. So he's taking advantage of this time what they used to call a honeymoon.

Not very much of a honeymoon now, but but, and he's enacting things that he said he would do on the campaign trail. No one should be surprised by this. I have always said, you know, I, I have empathy for and and feel bad about those people that got laid off to work for the federal government. They're good people.

They weren't doing anything wrong with hired him to do this job. And and now we're not going to we're not going to do that job anymore, or we're going to do it more efficiently. But, it's amazing to me that the Democrats on in the position of being in favor of waste, fraud, abuse, you know, because that's kind of where they're coming from on on their opposition to what, what the administration's trying to do.

Well, to, to follow that up, there was a story about the IRS that I saw yesterday that I think it's about a fourth of their workforce, like 20,000 employees of the IRS, to use a popular word, they're self-reporting from the IRS, right? Yep. And they're taking the the retirement deal that that Trump has given to them. They get their paycheck until October.

Yeah, but they leave the agency. And I mean that that's really a brilliant downsizing because they get a pretty darn good deal. They get a paycheck for several months through the summer. If they're of retirement age, they can retire. If they need to look for work, they've got time to do it. But it also reduces the size and scope of government.

And it's, it's what the private sector does when they do workforce, downsizing and stuff. I mean, it's what they do it the side out here generally the challenge is if it's broad based across everything, then you're then you end up people with experience and stuff decide they're going to retire and some. And what agencies will tell me that I talk to you all the time, people with in agencies and stuff to say the problem with this is we got a problem with the workforce reductions.

The problem is were firing people we should be keeping, and we're keeping people we should be letting go. So that's it needs to be more selective, as is all I would say in that. But they're getting around to that. But, it's amazing how many people work for the federal government and how many are taking this early retirement plan across the government, not just not just in, in, 1 or 2 agencies.

It's across the government. One question. I know Julie's got a lot of questions in this first almost 100 days. Now, is there anything that Trump has done that's that's concerned you? I know some of the Republicans are not real happy with the tariff approach. There's some uncertainty there. Anything about what Trump's doing that you're kind of going, not what he's doing sometimes how they're doing it.

Like I say, I would have been more selective when I, when I, if I, if I were in charge of doing this, but, you know, I've looked at what we've tried in the past. We had, if you remember, the Simpson-Bowles Commission, they met for, I don't know, six, seven, eight, nine months and, with House members, Senate members and the Simpson-Bowles team and stuff to put forth a plan how to balance the federal budget, how to get it on a path of reducing the budget and stuff and all that.

What happened to it? Yeah. Nothing. Nothing. Yeah. Steny Hoyer, a good friend of mine from Maryland, Democratic minority leader, when he was when I was working with him, we were we thought the House needed to have something along those lines. So we put together Go Big Coalition, which is essentially the same thing as Simpson-Bowles. And we met with them a lot and stuff.

Whatever happened to that? Nothing. Yeah. So maybe this is the only way, you could address this problem. Not with a chainsaw, but maybe with an ax. I don't know. Yeah, it's, it is, something that has to be done. And anybody, the thought that we would come in and reduce the size of the federal government, and there wouldn't be any layoffs, wouldn't be any pain or suffering or how are we going to get along without that?

I think we're living in a fairyland, because when you when you trim this federal budget, a lot of it's going to be on employees and that kind of stuff. And that's painful. So I don't know that I would have done anything, differently than he's done. There are some times you kind of go the tariffs I don't like tariffs.

I think they're a hidden tax. But when you put it in context of another country is going to tariffs, tariff us at a certain level and we're going to, tariff them in a lower level. What's the problem with making them even? Yeah, his ultimate goal, I honestly believe, is to lower worldwide tariffs by making the other countries realize what they're doing.

You know, that last year was it last year, I think, maybe the year before the United States businesses paid 400 or paid $350 billion in tariffs to other countries. You know, what the United States received in tariffs. And we're the biggest marketplace in the world, about 50,000,000,350 to 50. Yeah. So wow, what he's trying to do is balance this out.

And then hopefully once it gets balanced out, all countries will realize, you know, we're better off not terrifying and actually doing a free market. And that's that I think is what his goal is. But as he said, there's going to be a little pain and suffering in the meantime until that all happens. But man, they're making agreements right now that are incredible.

You got I think I heard this morning over 90 countries, wanting to meet and talk about tariffs with the administration. I think it jumped up to like 130 that that's been yeah, that's amazing to everybody in the world. I was also amazed. Maybe you were too. I was amazed at how many tariff experts there were suddenly on social media.

That's when Trump started you. Yeah, like I know, I know it. Everybody becomes an expert. But it is you know, it's basically it's yeah, if a business has to pay a bunch of tariffs and they don't pass that cost on to consumers, eventually they go out of business if they're losing money. So it's ultimately it's the it's the consumer that pays that tariff through higher, higher prices of goods and stuff.

But if our goal is to get them all down, then America compete against the world. Yeah, yeah. All right. One of the issues that Trump is definitely in a major majority with is the, no, boys or men in girls and women's sports. And, recently the House voted on, bill that kind of codified that. And all of the Democrats chose to vote against that.

You've mentioned already in this interview that you've got Democrats who are friends. Obviously you would, because they're they're humans first, Democrats second. So what is their reasoning? Did you have conversations with Democrats and what did they say about voting no for that on a sit on an issue that is clearly important to Americans? Well, that's interesting because I've got a lot of, Democratic friends, who I would have thought maybe would have voted for that.

But I think their party position is is there's not very you know, this happens rarely. There's only a few transgender people playing in, in women's sports and stuff. So it's not that big a deal. Well, it is a big deal. I think you got to, as Trump said in his is, addressed to Congress, there are men and there are women and that's it, you know, and that's what the government is trying to recognize and stuff.

And that's why we passed that bill. And I think it is you said an 8020 issue or something like that. But I don't understand why the, why the Democrats voted against it mainly, I guess, because it was Trump that proposed it. And there's a lot of those things we had to say that last week, which essentially says you have to be an American citizen to vote in a national election in this country, and you have to show proof of citizenship when I go to vote.

And when you go to vote here, you take your driver's license with you. I mean, it seems like common sense. An overwhelming majority of people agree with that. And the Democrats all voted against it except for for was it something that voted with us but all the rest of them voted against? How can you vote against your requirement that you have to be an American citizen to vote?

And they came out with this nonsense about we're taking away women's right to vote. No, we're not. And that's just they come up with some of the strangest arguments that I've ever heard in my life. So, Congressman, on that note, we actually have a question from one of our listeners, and I will just include their sort of loaded language that they use.

The question, what is your stance on Trump's blatant violation of the 14th amendment, birthright citizenship clause? I think they're just having a look at it right now to see if what birthright citizenship means, if the way it's been interpreted over the years is the correct way. Yeah. And I don't know, ultimately a court will make that determination. So I don't think he's having a an assault on it.

What I think he's doing is question it how the interpretations court and that's okay. We'll see what the courts have to say. And then, if if the courts say no, we've been interpreting it correctly over the years that, you would have to do a constitutional amendment which would have to get two thirds vote in the House and Senate and three quarters of the states.

You know, that'd be hard to change. Yeah. Takes a while to do that. Takes a while. Do. That's why it hasn't happened there many times in our history. Yeah. All right. Let's take a break. 923 (208) 542-1279. If you'd like to send a text with your question for Congressman Mike Simpson, we'll continue the discussion after this. 928 now on Newstalk 107, I, Neil Larson, Julie Mason and Congressman Mike Simpson joining us in in studio this morning during the, the the work period.

Do you get a little downtime while you're here? I mean, can you go watch a movie or, you know, take a couple couple days off to spend with your dog and your wife you haven't seen in a long time? Yeah. So kind of get reacquainted with them and everything. And yeah, you get to do some things around the house.

Things that Danny do that I haven't, haven't done for a while. So you take the wrong turn down a hall, forgetting what your house layout is. Right? You do actually do that. I sleep obviously a lot in DC when I'm here in Idaho at my home here, but also in motels, like, we're going over to Boise today, and I'll be at a motel for the next two days.

It's amazing how many times you wake up from the night to go to the bathroom, and you forget where you are. You know which way to where. Yeah. Okay. Here's a left field question for you. Okay. You did not anticipate this question, I promise. No. Several states have banned the use of chem trailing in our skies.

Tennessee, apparently is one of them. When will Idaho get on board with protecting our skies from the chemicals that are being spread over its people and landscape? This is obviously maybe a legislative Idaho Legislature issue, but do you get that? Do you get comments like that? The very first year I was elected, I was, a town hall meeting in, Rexburg, and there was a lady sitting in the front row that was, beautiful lady senior says, some gray hair, nice pearls on black dress.

She's sitting there, she's listening. And when I open it up to questions and stuff toward the end, she said, well, what are you going to do about contrails? Yeah. And I said, what about the contrails? You know, she said, you know, they're testing out chemicals on us and we're all, you know, kind of going, well, I said, I don't know, but and I'll look into it.

And, they're water vapor is what they are. And, it but it's a good conspiracy sort of thing. But I understand some states have banned it and that's going to be kind of interesting. Okay. Well, let's talk about health in general because RFK Jr has been very active fitting right in with the speed of Trump in Washington.

Now, he says that he believes by September we may know the primary cause of autism. Maybe that has an implication for vaccines, maybe, you know, maybe comment in general, what's really salient about RFK Jr's reforms at the FDA that that you like and maybe some you have concerns about. I think it's good that we have someone there who's willing to look at things and see how we do things.

When they said that he was an active anti-vaxxer, he's not really as strongly an anti-vaxxer, as one would think. When he talks about the polio vaccine, there's actually seven different polio vaccines in the last one. Didn't go through, according to him, didn't go through the, same testing and so forth. There's the first six. So he wasn't against all vaccines.

Yeah, but he wants to make sure that they're safe for the American public and stuff. There are some things like measles and stuff like that. We have an outbreak of that. And the vaccines are very important in that arena. I have a little concern. I'm going to have some fun with him when he testifies before our subcommittee that I sit on labor, Health and Human Services.

I'll want to talk to him a little bit about fluoride, having been a dentist in the real world. And I know the impact of fluoride and stuff, and, you know, you can get too much fluoride. Yeah. And that happens naturally in some areas and stuff. But the amount of fluoride you put in fluoride water to in, city water to, prevent decay is amazing.

The decay that it presents, and I've seen it happen. So I mean, I've seen the results of it. So I'll have a fun, talking to him about that and where he gets the science and stuff. I can't figure out dentists because you guys do things that are counter to your business model. I know it like you pay kids to bring their candy in after Halloween.

Yeah, and now you want to put fluoride in the water to prevent cavities. Yeah, I know it. It is. You know, it was. You guys are terrible business. I know we are, but it was it was, rated one of the ten top, advancements in medicine, fluoride in water. Yeah. And, it. Yeah, I've often said that when somebody first time somebody asked you, what do you think about Kennedy taking want to take fluoride out of, city drinking water?

I said, hey, as a dentist, I'm all for it, man. That's more business, more cavities. Yeah, but that's not the way the dental profession looks at it. Go ahead. Okay. I was going to say we went through a long stretch there, probably the last two years of the Biden administration where I felt like as I was prepping news for the next day, we were sending millions more to Ukraine once a week, like it was happening all of the time.

That is completely dropped off under Trump. And can you give us your idea of did we need to send as much as we did, where obviously, the war is still kind of maintaining the same kind of level as it was back in July of last year? Yeah, we were funneling so much money and we're not funneling any money right now.

How was the war still the same whether what whether or not we were sending money or not, sending money. Because I think what's happened is, what the president wanted, and that is the European Union, who is right next to this war. They've stepped up and started funding, more of it and that type of stuff. But he's, suggesting that, these sides get together and negotiate a peace deal.

Ultimately, that will happen. But you got to get both sides at a state where they they realize that pursuing this war any further is not in their best interests. And, I've been a supporter of Ukraine because I think they were I, I don't think I know they were invaded by by Russia with no provocation or anything. And, I don't think when it's all done that we can allow Putin to walk out of there saying he won, because I will tell you who's the scariest of all that is the Baltic states.

Yeah, yeah. I mean, when I was there probably 6 or 7 years ago, they were worried then. And they're really worried now, which that's a, that's a delicate, delicate negotiation because the flip side of that coin is neither side wants to leave saying they lost. Yeah. That's right. And and so that's a weird outcome to, to try and achieve.

You got to you've got to walk out of there with both both sides saying they got their, their primary. Yeah mission out of it. But how do you say that Ukraine if you've lost territory basically it's a zero sum. Yeah it is thing. Yeah. It's like it's like when Reagan and Tip O'Neill, the Democrat speaker of the House from Massachusetts, negotiated a deal on, on Social Security, and it passed.

It passed, and it saved Social Security for a generation. It's now we've got to do more to to save it for the next generation. But they walked out together holding hands. And tip O'Neill said that damn Ronald Reagan, he made me go for extending no, the age of retirement. And Ronald Reagan said that damn tip O'Neill. He made me vote for an increase in the taxes, you know?

And so they blamed each other for the parts they didn't like. Yeah, but they agreed on the outcome and it was good for the country. And maybe that was part of the agreement. Like, I get to blame you for this. You blame me. Exactly. It is. And I also wanted to talk to you about immigration. So, Trump keeps celebrating the numbers, the massive decrease.

Amazing. Yeah, at least 95%. We're at 95% agreement. Trump says it's a little bit more. It has been a decrease in, border crossings. I know we've had listeners who who are concerned that Congress now needs to act and shore up the border policies in case we get a Democrat. President again in, say, 2028. And then we just open the borders wide up again.

What kind of options do we have in Congress to make that more secure? Or is it just the fact that the Biden administration wasn't following the law? Well, it's obvious that the Biden administration wasn't enforcing the law, which is which was terrible. But who's to say that that won't happen again, as you said? Yeah. There are probably things that Congress needs to look at, to change some of the immigration statutes to make them permanent.

So that, you know, what do you do when you have a president who just refuses to enforce the law? So, I mean, that's that's the challenge, but it has been amazing what, this president has done on on immigration. I loved his line in the state of the Union. We had to have a Biden said. We had to have a new policy from Congress is actually all we needed was a new president, you know, that would enforce the law.

And it is amazing how much, it has come down more than I or anyone else thought would happen. But, now they've turned over. I can't remember how many thousand acres of, of, federal land to the Army so that they can. Yeah, can, patrol the border within, what, 60ft or something that or 60 yards of the of the border.

So it's, he's doing exactly what he said he would do. And frankly, if you're here illegally, you need to need to grab a hold of your rear end and think about where you want to be. It's so true. And let's talk about Idaho specifically when it comes to immigration, because the the legislature took this issue up from several different angles, from E-Verify to our elections.

And I think the legislature, I don't know if I remember, legislative session that was dovetailing with what was happening on the federal level as much as we did this year. Yeah. In Idaho, we know that we're like a lot of other states. We do depend on immigrant labor, and there's a significant chunk of that immigrant labor that's not here legally.

But if you were to instantly remove all of the illegal workers, you're going to have an economic crisis. You're you're gonna have a farming crisis. So, you, you, you occupy the same city now as President Trump. You know what his position is on illegal immigration. Do you? He hasn't really spoken directly about farm labor and what the future is for that.

That part of our our labor force in terms of deportation and how they'll be treated. Yeah. But if you were to guess and anticipate what what are your some of your thoughts on that? Well, you know, we've been working on this, visa reform bill or ag immigration reform bill. And, the people we're looking at are that are yes, they came illegally.

But they've been working here 15, 20 years on the farm. Don't have a problem in our in our bill. What you do is you is you bring them out of the woodwork. You do a background check to make sure that they don't have a criminal history, that they paid their taxes. They have to pay a fine because they came illegally and stuff.

And then you get a permanent green card, because the problem with the H-2a visa program right now is it's for seasonal work. And there's a lot of work on dairies and other places, you know, cattle and stuff that's year round. So, that's what we're trying to reform. I know that the president is interested in this. His secretary of agriculture just released, I released a news report.

I saw, that she talked about agricultural, workforce issues. And a lot of the things she said are exactly the same things we've got in our bill. So I want to sit down with her and, and our group of, Republicans and Democrats working on it and see if we can come to an agreement on this.

And we'll probably do that within the next 2 or 3 weeks. Okay. I'm I'm puzzled by this. Maybe you can shed light on this. That solution seems like number one, it's the most achievable. One. Yeah. You do have hard core, you know, immigration people who are in the deport them all camp, which I, I can appreciate that sentiment.

However, that's not really pragmatic nor nor is it beneficial to everyone. We're all going to suffer if that's if that's the approach that feels like low hanging fruit to create that program where the people you described that have been here, they've kept their their nose clean. They're they're working hard, they pay a fine, and then we shift them into a category where they are here legally, it seems like there would be broad political will to make that happen.

Why is that so elusive? I think the reason we haven't been able to get it done is because of what had been happening at the border the last four years. And anytime you brought up the word immigration or immigrant or anything, everybody's mind went to the border and what the hell, we don't want to make that easier or whatever.

And so they were opposed. They didn't want to touch the word immigration. We passed it in the House twice and couldn't quite get it to the Senate. We were very, very close, but couldn't get it through the Senate. And and that's what you're right. This is this is, you would think, pretty simple, but everybody wants to add on to it.

And pretty soon you got a bill that, that you can't pass. So we're trying to keep this together. And like I say, we're probably going to introduce, this bill within the next couple of weeks. Well, and I've always felt like the first step is to stop the hemorrhage at the border. You have to do that, or else you're going to create a mat.

You can't create the program first because then it's a magnet. So you got to stop the bleeding at the border. And then you have to deal with those who've been here and, and hopefully, maybe it looks like Trump has done a pretty good job of stopping the flow at the border and say, yeah, we're down. That he said 99%.

Well, he the reported number is 95. He claimed 99. It's somewhere in between those two numbers. Both should be celebrated like both are awesome. It doesn't matter which one. For me it is. It's just pretty amazing. It's that low. Yeah. Okay. Well, now maybe hopefully is achievable now. It'll make it more achievable I think. And we're we're working on getting our senators, a couple of Republican and Democratic senators to sponsor this one to get it over and, get over in the Senate.

So. Okay. All right. We're going to take our news break really quick. 208542107 can we have you one more segment? Sure. Real quick. Yeah. We're okay. Yep. Okay. All right. We'll be right back. All right. 947 on Newstalk 117. Just a couple more minutes here with Congressman Mike Simpson. You're in district now. Going to be bouncing around at any public events you want to let our listeners know about.

You got a ribbon cutting, I think. Got a ribbon cutting. We're doing, meeting some people, today and going out to the site and doing a few things out there, but, mostly these are just meetings I have with people and stuff. Gotcha. Yeah. Okay. What is priority number one when you get back in industry or in, in DC, get the appropriations process working now that we have a budget resolution, the other thing that it does besides reconciliation is it gives us our top line, and they will be half of what the Appropriations Committee can spend, what's called discretionary spending.

Yeah. And for the first time in years, it will be the same in the House and the Senate. Part of the difficulty we've had in the past is because we haven't done budget resolution. The House adopts a number and the Senate adopts a different number. And then you're you're trying to work out differences between bills with different numbers.

You can't get it done. So now we will have the same number and we can start on our appropriations process. We're going to have, the Secretary of Interior and the Forest Service and the EPA and all those hearings going on over the next few months. So that'll be important as we're working on the reconciliation bill and trying to get that done by Memorial Day.

Okay. Really quick. And I know we have one minute left, but in in the New World with Dodge, obviously, I don't think Dodge's findings really had a voice in this budget. But in future budgets, are we going to see those savings down the road? Absolutely. Yeah. I mean, we will certainly take into consideration what they're doing and stuff as we write our write our bills and stuff.

Yeah. And there might be some differences there. Congress might decide that we still want to do this or we don't want to do this or whatever, you know, but the waste, fraud and abuse and the nonsense, they're fine and all that kind of stuff. You'll see that reflected in our budgets. Absolutely. Yeah. Okay. All right. Congressman Mike Simpson, thank you for joining us today.

Good to be with you. We appreciate you joining us in studio. It's 950 on Newstalk 109. We'll be back and have our wrap up segment after this. 954 on Newstalk 107 nine. Neil Larson along with Julie Mason and the program brought to you by Town and Country Gardens. Think about how you want to do your lawn this year, the plants that you have both inside and outside your your house, green lush lawn.

You want to trim your trees, you want to spray your tree? I mean, all of it. There's a lot to do in your yard. Town and Country Gardens is the place to go to get all of the things you need, including the expertise that you need to make sure that you're doing things right. They've got lots of very, very informed and, gifted people that can help you out with that.

I love that about Town and Country Gardens. They're loaded with experts. And Rex says that he's like, don't talk to me. I hired people that are smarter at this specific thing than I am, so talk to them. And that's a great feeling to be able to walk in and know that the person you're going to chat with about your yard or chat with about these shrubs, or chat with about these potted plants, him, they're going to be able to give you sound solid advice for the climate in East Idaho.

The soil conditions in East Idaho, the calendaring in East Idaho, and the weather, all of that. You can answer. Have all those questions answered. Well, I you're right. And I've had Rex do that before with me. Like he'll defer to, one of his employees. I think one of the things he said once was. Is that a leaf?

No. I'm kidding. He didn't say that. Did not say that. No, he. Rex is actually very smart in his own right and know. And he knows the good people he's put in place. But he'll he'll defer to people who know maybe a little bit more about the radishes or about the tomatoes or about the begonias or begonias. And now the glow in the dark petunias.

Yeah, that's an event that's happening at town and country Gardens on April 26th in the evening time. They are selling a special, scientifically formulated petunia that does glow in the dark. And if you want to know more about that event, you can go to my garden wkyc.com again, my garden geek.com. There's so much more at that website than that.

But that's where you go to learn about the event and it's going to be a party. Yum! Food, entertainment. You're there to learn things and get your chance to purchase one of these really cool plants. Yeah, yeah, that's I want to see it glowing in the dark. That's that's pretty cool. Yeah. What if it's like a three plant minimum per person?

What if I bring eight people with me and they each buy three, so I end up with 24 at my house? You could arrange that if you. I'm not going to stop you. I.

See, Julie, you're supposed to plot these things off the air. All right? I just know that. Yeah, you could. You could do that if you want. We just have a minute or so. Julie, we didn't really dive into the Letitia James, the attorney general of New York, who went after so vigorously Donald Trump for what he said to to gain financing that, by the way, all the banks giving him financing were totally fine with it.

They didn't feel slighted. Nobody was out any money. Nobody was defrauded. He's paid it back. He's everything's paid back. They still went after him. Turns out she has allegedly told multiple lies on forms in order to get a more favorable mortgage for property that she. Yeah. I mean, what they were claiming is that Trump overvalued a property. Well, Letitia James, she put her dad as her husband on one form.

She claimed one of her properties was a different size than it actually was. So that it would have more a different value. Right. Hey, those are real lies. Yeah. That's true. And, if Jonathan Turley is right, she might be in some big time trouble. So. Karma. Yeah. Here it comes. Karma's a Hillary, isn't it? All right. You just said.

I did just say that. All right, tomorrow we'll be back. We'll see you then. On Newstalk 179.