John Gerardi Guest Hosts - None of the Politicans Want To Cut Spending or Raise Taxes

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Chief objection to the OBBB that the Democrats have raised
by raising the specter that it will literally kill people,
that cuts to Medicaid will literally kill people. But it
does present us with this sort of intractable financial political
problem that we face in America. We have to either

(00:24):
cut spending or massively increase revenue to meet up with
enormous entitlement programs, and nobody wants to do either of
those things. I am not Trevor Carey. This is John
Girardi fill an in for Trevor today. I'm the host
of the John Girardi Show, which you can hear every

(00:44):
Monday through Friday right here on Power Talk A ninety
six seven AM, fourteen hundred. I'm also the host of
Right to Life Radio every Saturday morning at nine am,
right here on this same very fine station. You can
find all those through Apple Podcasts or the iHeart app.
There we go, plug in the old iHeart app.

Speaker 2 (01:02):
There you go.

Speaker 1 (01:04):
So let's talk about OBBB, and again, the biggest objection,
the biggest objection to OBBB is that it cuts Medicaid.
It cuts Medicaid and people are going to die because
they won't have medicaid. Now it's not going to result
in people dying because they're kicked off of the program,
although some people, well, let me back that up. Some

(01:27):
people are going to get kicked off of Medicaid, and
we might say that it's kind of a good thing
for some of them to get kicked off of Medicaid. Okay,
there are some people who are going to get kicked
off of Medicaid because right now Medicaid has just turned
into health insurance for anybody under a certain income threshold,
and maybe it shouldn't be for anybody under that income threshold.

(01:51):
Certain kinds of work requirements were put in place, modest
work requirements for certain kinds of able bodied people, accounting
for caretakers of children and things like that. Basically, hey,
if you're an able bodied man, you can work twenty
hours in a week first before you're eligible for Medicaid.

(02:15):
I don't think that's a crazy thing to incentivize otherwise
able bodied people who are just that's one of the
weird things that has happened really ever since the Obama years,
where our federal unemployment rate has been very very low,
and the federal unemployment rate has remained actually fairly low
for a long time but what's not included in the

(02:37):
federal unemployment rate. The federal unemployment rate is only measuring
people looking for jobs who don't have one, people who
want jobs and don't have one. What it doesn't measure
are people not seeking employment and who can't get one,

(02:59):
and the pool of people who've just kind of crashed
out and given up. Otherwise able bodied but just not working,
not looking for a job, and I guess are adults
who are just living with their parents or adults who
are somehow being cared for in other ways. And I'm

(03:21):
not talking about you know, a married a married woman
who is a stay at home mom.

Speaker 2 (03:28):
Or something like that. I mean, that's not what I'm
talking about.

Speaker 1 (03:30):
I'm talking about like otherwise, people that you would think
should be looking for work and are just not looking
for work. That number is disturbingly high. So I think
to require someone like that who's getting Medicaid, hey you
get a job, not a crazy thing to do. It

(03:51):
is though, going to limit some of the federal It
seems as though there is going to be restrictions on
the amount of federal money that's matching state money for
different kinds of reimburse and people are concerned that this
could really adversely hurt, adversely impact a lot of hospitals,
including rural hospitals. Now, David Valadeo did a lot of
work to increase funding for specifically rural hospitals to help

(04:14):
prevent that from happening. And I'll also note this, it
seems that David Valadeo, you know, liberals are upset about
Medicaid cuts. I get the sense that David Valadeo had
a huge impact on the OBBB all Right, Republicans needed

(04:38):
every single vote they could get in the House. So
whoever was the lowest common denominator, the person most concerned
about voting for it, was going to have huge sway.
It was going to be able to get concessions to
get him to vote, and Valadeo got a lot of them.
I think if you're a Democrat, rather than you know,
condemning David Valadeo, no to the depths of Hell or whatever.

(05:01):
I mean, Republicans were always going to get enough votes
to get this passed, and I think Valadeo probably did
the most to mitigate the cuts to Medicaid of basically
any Republican out there. Valadeo has been in one of
the most competitive house races in the country for the
last several years. Everyone knows this. President Trump knows it,
Mike Johnson knows. Everyone understands it. So he's trying to

(05:23):
vote for it and trying to keep his seat, and
they were able to make some concessions to get him
to yes. Well, So, in short, medicaid is is the
big problem. But the medicaid program is costing us like
a trillion dollars a year. It has expanded wildly. And

(05:47):
the thing is, with these kinds of social welfare programs,
the ratchet only seems to go one way. Once you
expand a program. If you want to cut it, you
are a heartless, cruel, evil monster who wants to kick
people out on the street. And the problem is, well,

(06:09):
we have we are expanding our deficits year over year.
Our national debt is racking up year over year over year.
Where Medicaid costs a trillion bucks, Medicare costs another something
like a trillion bucks. Well, social Security costs another gazillion dollars,

(06:32):
and the military costs another gazillion dollars and nobody wants
to cut any of them. Here we are with a
relatively modest cut to Medicaid, which has it like doubled
in cost over the over a relatively short period of time,

(06:52):
and people are screaming bloody murder. They're they're literally accusing
their opponents of murdering people, that people are dying. You
will kill people. This bill will literally kill people. But
this is sort of the intractable problem that I think
Elon Musk was totally naive about when he got started
out with the Doge Enterprise. When Elon Musk started out

(07:17):
with the Doge Enterprise, basically he kept thinking that we
could balance the federal budget if we cut out waste,
fraud and abuse. We all love that phrase, waste, fraud
and abuse. Well, let's just cut spending through waste fraud
and abuse, waste fraweden abuse, waste for an abuse, waste
frauden abuse, waste forro aden abuse. The fact is, there

(07:40):
isn't that much waste, fraud and abuse in the federal budget.

Speaker 2 (07:43):
There's a lot.

Speaker 1 (07:44):
I mean, it's more money than I'll ever see in
my life, but as far as making a difference when
your deficits are over a trillion dollars every year, it's
just not a lot you can get rid of the
entire Usaid. Our deficits are several trillion dollars per year.

(08:05):
Even if you completely eliminate the whole USAID program, the
whole program was only forty billion dollars. You've got several
trillion dollars. It's it's good, it's a start, I guess
if it's all a waste of money, if it's all
a waste of money, which I don't think every single.

Speaker 2 (08:22):
Dollar was waste of money. A lot of it was
a waste.

Speaker 1 (08:29):
But you know, it's just not enough, and it's unrealistic
to act like I mean. So, the budget deficit for
fiscal year twenty twenty four was one point eight trillion. Again,
even if you eliminate all of USA, it's only forty billion.

(08:51):
And the problem is the things that drive the deficit
are entitlements. Its entitlements in the military. Those are the
main line items. Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, and the military.

(09:14):
You can cut all the other cred you want and
we're still in the red.

Speaker 2 (09:21):
So what are you gonna do.

Speaker 1 (09:26):
Here's the Republicans cutting the lowest hanging entitlement fruit and.

Speaker 2 (09:31):
David Alladao's gonna maybe lose his seat for it.

Speaker 1 (09:33):
Republicans are probably gonna lose the House for it. It's
this near intractable problem because you only have two solutions.
You've got to either massively increase taxes to get more revenue,
which by the way, also has a risk of massively
depressing your economy. And it's you know, the straight line

(09:57):
between increased taxes equals in increased revenue is not always
so straight. Reagan was able to actually, you know, there's
a certain thought, the whole laugh or curve idea, which
is that when you cut taxes, you can actually increase
the amount of revenue you generate because you can increase
economic activity. So you know, you'd but any anyway, the

(10:21):
long and short is, we don't have enough money for
the entitlements, so we've either got to cut entitlements or
increase revenue. No one wants to increase taxes, and nobody
wants to cut entitlements. Trump is successful became president in
twenty sixteen largely on the strength of there was the
Republican primary debate stage. All the other Republicans question got

(10:46):
asked them, how many of you support you know, reforms
and cuts and restructuring. You know, the Social Security program
is unfunded, it's going to run out of money. You know,
how many of you support, you know, things to restructure
the program. Ultimately asking cutting social security. Trump was the
only one who said, no, I'm not cutting social Security,
not doing it. Trump was the only one, and clearly

(11:10):
it was the smart thing to do, because you know what,
old voters don't like anyone talking about cutting social Security
ever anytime, Thank you very much. It startles me the
amount of older voters, probably some of you listening, you're
gonna get mad at me for saying this. It startles
me the number of older voters who, honest to God,
think that social Security was like an investment thing. I

(11:33):
paid into social Security my whole work in life for taxes,
and therefore I demand my money back in social Security.
Don't you cut my social Security. That is not how
social security works. If that's how it worked, If it
was an investment that you withdrew from, then it's the
crappiest investment plan in human history. If you had just

(11:56):
dumped your money into a mutual fund index it was
just based on the and you would be a multi gazillionaire. No,
it's the worst investment in history. If it's an investment,
and it's not an investment, it's a Ponzi scheme. People,
young working people paying their money, and that money is

(12:17):
immediately taken out and given to old people old people.
The money that you've been paying in this whole time
was already taken out and given to other old people,
the old people of ten, twenty thirty years ago. And
the problem is it's unsustainable from a number of perspectives.

(12:37):
It's unsustainable because we haven't had enough babies. We aborted
too many people and we contracepted and we didn't have enough.
We don't have enough babies. The only way we can
kind of make up the difference is through immigration, and
even that's not doing enough. Also, old people are living
a lot longer. You know, Social Security was designed as
a program where people just dropped dead of a heart

(12:57):
attack at age sixty. Now you've got sixty year old
old women caring for their you know, ninety year old mothers.
You got fifty year old women going out to lunch
with their seventy year old mother and their ninety year
old grandmother. So that's this unsustainable thing where it's political

(13:19):
suicide to try to actually cut Social Security. It's also
political suicide to increase taxes to pay for Social Security.
And this is what the OBBB sort of runs up against.
Why Elon Musk sort of crashed out of the whole
system because he was like, so, no one wants to
cut any entitlement whatsoever, to do anything that really balances

(13:39):
the budget here, that's what we're saying. We're gonna keep
tax cuts high. We're gonna we're gonna keep the Trump
tax cuts in place. We're gonna keep spending big time
on the military. We're gonna keep what. We're not gonna
do anything to touch entitlements. The only thing we're maybe
gonna do is kind of cut some Medicaid spending and

(14:01):
a bunch of people are going to lose their phony,
blooney jobs over it, and Republicans might lose their majority
in the House as a result. Yeah, that's basically it.
So that's another sort of intractable math problem that the
OBBB runs up against. And it's why Elon Musk got
frustrated with the whole enterprise and threw up his hands

(14:22):
and walked away. It's why Ran Paul didn't want to
vote for it. So why Thomas Massey doesn't want to
vote for it. They actually want to balance the budget somehow,
They actually want to cut spending in real, meaningful ways,
and there's a hesitance to do so. Now, are they
letting the perfect become the enemy of the good.

Speaker 2 (14:41):
They might be.

Speaker 1 (14:42):
This is probably because you know, at the end of
the day, your ideas are only as good as what
can get fifty votes in the Senate. If an idea
can't get fifty votes in the Senate, it is just
an idea, a useless, pointless idea. And Trump very much
thinks in those sort of pragmatic terms. I don't think

(15:04):
Trump likes all the deficit spending, but it is what
it is. It's accomplishing other big time, really important goals.
Spending the money much smarter, he would argue, And therefore
it's worth it. Getting the immigrat getting the immigration sister
system under control, these guys would argue, is more important

(15:27):
and solves the sort of root problem. The thing is,
I guess I'm not all that convinced that immigrant You know,
people say, oh, if we just if you cut out
a legal immigration, that'll save you billions and trillions of dollars.

Speaker 2 (15:41):
So what Trump did is good for that.

Speaker 1 (15:43):
Well, I don't know that that. Actually, I don't know
immigration prompts billions and trillions of dollars and more spending.
It's not that kind of a straight line.

Speaker 2 (15:59):
At any right.

Speaker 1 (16:00):
This is the sort of intractable fiscal prompt This.

Speaker 3 (16:04):
Is the tremortary shown on the Valley's Power Talk.

Speaker 1 (16:08):
The big features in the OBBB is the defunding of
Planned Parenthood and other kinds of abortion providers for one year.

Speaker 2 (16:17):
Yes, only one year. I'm not happy about it.

Speaker 1 (16:20):
Only one year. Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers will
not be eligible to receive any federal Medicaid or other money.
This will probably cost Planned Parenthood something in the ballpark
of seven hundred million dollars for only one year. I

(16:41):
wanted it to be permanent. I wanted it to be
at least for ten years. And unfortunately, the fiftieth vote
to get the OBBB passed in the Senate was Lisa Murkowski,
the senator from Alaska who is pro choice, a constant
thorn in the Republicans, but because they have to cater
to her sometimes to get her to be the fiftieth

(17:02):
vote on things, and she said, now I want Planned
parent head to be Planned parent head does the line
of gun things, and thus planned parent haid's only defunded
for one year and not for ten. However, it might
be possible that some broader defunding could still happen. Now,
one of the processes I've heard about read about is

(17:24):
the so called precision process. Let me explain what this is.
The whole idea of this one big, beautiful bill is
that it's a reconciliation bill. So reconciliation bills are basically
bills that are in some way tied to federal spending,
budgetary bills that are not subject to the normal Senate

(17:45):
filibuster rule for most things. In the Senate, you can
only advance a bill and debate on a bill if
you get sixty votes rather than fifty. It's why Congress
doesn't do anything anymore, because basically it's impossible to get
sixty Senators to agree on almost anything. So as a result,
the reconciliation bills have grown in this sort of outsized

(18:09):
level of importance. Both Joe Biden and now Donald Trump
have tried to squash as much of their agenda as
they can into one massive reconciliation bill. And so what
reconciliation bills do is they authorize federal spending on X

(18:30):
and Y and Z and whatever. This OBBB is authorizing
federal spending of Medicaid money to go to entities like
planned parenthood, but not for this first year. After the
first year, yes, it can go okay, So it's authorizing
spending to go to planned parenthood, just not in the
first year. Well, there might be a possibility of what's

(18:52):
called a recision bill to happen after the fact, possibly
next year, basically to deauthorize money that was previously authorized.
And because that money was authorized in a fifty vote
threshold process, it could possibly be de authorized through a
similar fifty vote threshold. And I really hope that that's

(19:15):
what happens, because, look, there are fifty three Republicans in
the Senate. Three of them voted against the OBBB. Tom
Tillis from North Carolina, who's usually normally a fairly reliable
Republican vote, usually pro life, et cetera. Rand Paul voted

(19:38):
against it, who's very pro life, but is such a
fiscal hawk that he didn't want to vote for the OBBB.
And then Susan Collins from Maine. Susan Collins from Maine
is a very liberal Republican. Understandable, she's from Maine. I
can't expect her to vote the same way that like
Ted Cruz does. So if you put to those fifty
three Republican senators a bill that was purely just up

(20:02):
or down, Hey, do you want to cut off funding
for planned parenthood? Fifty one of those fifty three would
vote for it. And that's kind of the frustrating thing
I find about the negotiations for the One Big Beautiful
Bill is they went so hard at Tom Tillis. They
were so angry at Tom Tillis for not supporting the
One Big Beautiful Bill, threatening to primary him. And basically

(20:24):
what he did was he said, well, I'm just gonna
retire at the end of my term. Then how's that
now you have no leverage over me? And I'm still
not voting for your stupid bill. So they were so
negative and aggressive towards Tom Tillis and negative and aggressive
at Rand Paul and not conceding to what those two

(20:47):
guys wanted, that they then had to concede to what
Lisa Murkowski wanted. Lisa Murkowski is one of the two
pro choice Republicans in the Senate her and Susan Collins.
So Lisa Murkowski got only one year a Planned PARENTID defunded.
There is will in the Senate, at least fifty one
out of one hundred votes worth of will in the

(21:08):
Senate to defund Planned Parenthood, and I'm hopeful, and not
just defund Planned Parented, by the way, but also to
defund through the Medicaid program, Medicaid reimbursements for gender reassignment
surgeries for adults and gender interventions and all kinds of
things like that that were allowed to continue in the

(21:30):
One Big Beautiful Bill only because of Lisa Murkowski. So
I'm hopeful that some kind of recision process can take
place and there's some way to present it to Republican politicians.
Are you going to be okay with Planned parent We
defunded Planned Parented last year. Are you going to vote
to keep them funded? This is the Trevor Cherry Show

(21:52):
on the Valley's Power Talk.

Speaker 2 (21:54):
The One Big Beautiful Bill.

Speaker 1 (21:56):
It does have some stuff about energy production, and maybe
one of the things that's making me feel good about
it is this breathlessly sad piece that I found in
the Fresno b Will Trump's Big ugly bill kill plans
for California's offshore wind industry. This is written by Stephanie

(22:19):
Finucane Finucane how you pronounce that? Fi n u c Ane,
who is a native of San Luis Obispo County and
a graduate of cal Poly. Before joining the Tribune, she
worked for the Santa Barbara News Press in the Santa
Maria Times.

Speaker 2 (22:34):
All right, so just some journalist gal all right.

Speaker 1 (22:39):
Will Trump's big ugly bill kill plans for California's offshore
wind industry. The state of California has been bullish about
offshore wind energy. Donald Trump not so much. He once
said the wind is bowl bleep in reference to offshore
wind turbines. Now, his big beautiful Bill is acting not

(23:00):
just wind energy, but solar as well, by doing away
with generous tax credits that were an attractive incentive for
clean energy developers. Clean energy developers, let's hold on, hold
on to that word clean. Meanwhile, California has been counting
on wind energy to keep the lights on. Yeah, that's
the problem. In July of twenty twenty four, the California

(23:24):
Energy Commission announced adoption of a strategic plan to install
enough floating turbines off the coasts of Humboldt and Morobay
to supply twenty five thousand megawats of power by twenty
forty five, enough for twenty five million homes. Proposition four,
the ten billion dollar bond approved by California voters in
twenty twenty four, allocated eight hundred and fifty million to

(23:45):
energy infrastructure. More than half of this money, four hundred
and seventy five million, would support the development of wind
turbines off the California coast. That was a total boondoggle.
Ten billion dollar bond, again, meaning that the state gets
ten billion and the taxpayers have to pay like twenty
billion to pay for the ten billion, Because that's what

(24:10):
a bond is, ladies and gents. It's alone to a
governmental entity that the taxpayers have to pay back with taxes,
and they have to pay it back with interest over
a certain term. So this ten billion dollar bond is
going to cost us like twenty billion dollars for all
these stupid environmental projects that aren't going to be very

(24:30):
good at producing power. Will Trump's big ugly bill interfere
with those plans of the three companies that have been
awarded leases off of Moral Bay Equinor Wind, US Golden
State Wind, and in Energy California Offshore one responded. Equinor
sees Atlas Wind as a long term opportunity that will

(24:52):
help California meet its growing power demand create jobs. I
don't care if it creates jobs. I want. I'm so
sick of this public works projects that are funded with
our taxpayer dollars where the justification for them is, oh,
it will create jobs. I don't care. I want the
public work project to work. I don't care how many
jobs the high speed rail project has created. There's no rail,

(25:15):
there's no train. I don't care if the high if
the wind power thing creates jobs. I want power. I
want more electricity. AH As we focus on delivering our
US offshore wind projects on the East Coast currently in
execution mode, we are maintaining a presence in California, sharing information,

(25:35):
collaborating with key stakeholders. So they issue some total nothing
burger statement that doesn't actually say anything. Okay, the assault
on anyway, they're talking about blah blah blah blah, all
kinds of stuff for tax credits going away.

Speaker 2 (25:51):
Okay, here we go.

Speaker 1 (25:52):
Even without the energy, bills are expected to rise due
to the expiration of tax credits. There will be no
more investment credits for solar and wind after December thirty
first of twenty twenty seven. That's a huge blow. That
credits are worth up to thirty percent of the investment

(26:13):
for projects that meet prevailing wage requirements, and even more
if they qualify for bonuses buy for example, serving low
income communities or using American made materials in construction. Clean
energy leaders warn of dire outcomes if this bill becomes law.
Families will face higher electric bills, factories will shut down,
Americans will lose their jobs, and our electric grid will
grow weaker, said Abigail ross Hopper, president and CEO the

(26:37):
Solar Energy Industries Association. Car buyers could be affected as well.
Federal tax credits on electric vehicles are going away even
sooner than originally planned. On the Senate version of the
omnibus bill, the credits expire on September thirtieth. The House
version end of the tax break on December thirty first.
If you're considering an EV purchase, buy sooner rather than later.

(27:00):
All right, is some of this stuff maybe going to
lead to higher energy prices for states that are dependent
on wind and solar power. Maybe what the Trump Administration's
trying to do is to get us to not be
dependent on wind and solar because they're dumb, because they

(27:22):
don't work, because they're incredibly inefficient ways of producing power.
And this is the insanity of what California's facing here.
California was planning, until the Trump administration stopped it, to
have one hundred percent of all new car sales in
this state be for electric vehicles by the year twenty

(27:43):
thirty five. Do you know how much we have to
increase our capacity for our state's electrical grid to sustain
fourteen million new cars being plugged in? We have to
create whole energy production industries that don't even exist yet.

(28:04):
That's why they're trying to start an end and we
have to do it with one hand tied behind our back,
possibly two hands tied behind our back, because California will
not permit any construction of any natural gas power plants,
coal power plants, and most importantly, no nuclear power plants.

(28:31):
They won't even allow new hydro power plants, which is
like the one actually efficient way of producing green, zero
emissions energy. We're trying to do it with hydrogen, wind
and solar. So yeah, Trump is saying we're gonna stop

(28:52):
incentivizing this because it's stupid. Wind and solar power are unreliable.
They are fickle. They all only work when it's windy
and sunny. That's the problem. You can't always depend on
those things. You know how much a nuclear power plant.
You know how how many hours of a day a

(29:14):
nuclear power plant is churning out energy.

Speaker 2 (29:17):
All twenty four hours. It's constant.

Speaker 1 (29:22):
Doesn't matter. If it's cloudy, doesn't matter. If it's windy,
doesn't matter, if an owl flew into the turbine, doesn't matter.
It's pumpin' baby. And unless you build it like a
complete moron like they did at Chernobyl, that's the thing.
Like people will still bring up, oh what about the
Chernobyl disaster. Okay, yes, driving your boat directly into an

(29:44):
iceberg is a bad idea, But the Titanic is not
the reason for you to never go on a cruise.

Speaker 2 (29:51):
Okay.

Speaker 1 (29:52):
Chernobyl was a series of unbelievably stupid disastrous decisions, even
down to stuff like one of the things I remembered
reading about Chernobyl was that, Okay, I'm sitting here in
the iHeart studios. I'm sitting next to a window here,
I can see our outside wall or outside wall looks
like it's about maybe two feet thick. That was about

(30:15):
how thick the outside wall of Chernobyl was. It was
like not much bigger than a normal building's exterior wall.
It's like, yeah, any American nuclear power plant has an
exterior wall that's like twenty feet of sheer conk of
solid concrete, because you know what, you don't want thin
walls for a nuclear power plant for stuff to get out.

Speaker 3 (30:39):
Like that.

Speaker 2 (30:39):
There are about twenty things about Chernobyl that were stupid.

Speaker 1 (30:41):
Anyway, the Trump administration is trying to incentivize states to
not have their electrical their power supply be dependent on
inefficient means of energy production. And especially for California has
all these grand plans for green energy, but only is

(31:05):
restricting itself to solar and wind. Needs to do whole
infrastructure projects that are just not in existence, not even planned.
We don't have the infrastructure to sustain Again, if you
want fourteen million new electric cars on the road, they
all got to plug in somewhere, and we don't have
the grid to sustain it.

Speaker 3 (31:25):
This is the tremortary show on the Valley's power tongue.

Speaker 1 (31:31):
Cut all kinds of incentives that people have and rebates
that people have for n not for nuclear, it's cutting
all kinds of rebates and incentives people have for solar power,
cutting the incentive for solar power and wind power, cutting
tax breaks, and oh no, what's gonna happen to California's

(31:51):
green energy future? We were gonna have all these beautiful
in scare quotes, beautiful solar panels all over the state
producing so much power or during the daytime when it's sunny.
How could he strike this blow against green zero by

(32:11):
product energy? Oh wait a second, is solar energy really
clean and zero by products? There's this growing awareness that
actually solar panels, what the heck do you do with them?
When you're done? The cost to recycle them is enormous.

(32:31):
You can't really just you can't just throw them away.
You can't put them in a landfill. They're too dangerous.
They got all kinds of bad chemicals and materials and
stuff like that. So you're now left with this intractable problem.
You've got all these solar panels, and what the heck
do you do with them. See. This is the thing
that just kind of baffles me, is how the solar

(32:54):
energy lobby, I guess, was able to position itself as
we're we're the clean energy products, zero emissions, and here
we are sounding like Casey Casum for some reason, zero
emissions zero. I heard him during the commercial break and
that now now I'm trying to talk like case Caseum

(33:15):
here with the American to forty. Somehow we got duped
into thinking that solar energy, which has this byproduct of
a solar panel, what the heck do you do with
it when you're not using it? And actually a lot
a lot of what's happened is there's a ton of
solar panel litter, not so much as a result of

(33:37):
you've used the solar panel for its lifetime. It's no
longer usable and you got to get.

Speaker 2 (33:42):
Rid of it.

Speaker 1 (33:42):
People get rid of their solar panels before their useful
life cycle is done. Because solar energy technology has improved
so much over the years that okay, you buy, you
buy solar panels for your house in two thousand, Well
this and it's oh, it's a thirty year life cycle

(34:03):
for your solar panels. Well, in twenty fifteen, someone sells
to you, Hey, the solar panels now are way more efficient,
way better. Why don't you replace the ones on your house? Okay, yeah,
so what you've got are all these people buying solar
panels before they're existing solar panels. Useful life is over,

(34:24):
and understandably it'll save the money in the new solar panels,
which is more efficient. But now we have this huge
backlog of solar energy waste, which leads me to raise
this question. If we're going to give the choice of

(34:44):
two different forms of energy production, both neither of which
produces any emission, harmful emissions into the air, into the atmosphere,
no greenhouse effect, both of which, though have buy products
that we have to do something with that we can't
really recycle very well. Which would you rather pick the

(35:06):
energy production method that actually produces a ton of energy
or the one that's very fickle and doesn't actually produce
that much energy you'd produce, You'd pick the one that
produces a ton of energy.

Speaker 3 (35:16):
To assist that Trevor carry show on The Valley's Power
Dog