Latest / The Bill Handel Show / "Handel on the Polls" - Prop 1

Transcript

"Handel on the Polls" - Prop 1 · The Bill Handel Show

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: You're listening to KFI AM 640, the Bill Handel Show
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: on demand on the iHeartRadio app. And boy, do we
• 0:08
  Speaker 1: start a busy week for sure. Tomorrow, the election in Israel.
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: I'll talk about that at 8.50. That has a lot
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: to do with us. Of course, next Tuesday is our election,
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: our midterms. And this entire week, I'll be going through
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: some of the propositions as my voter guide, which you
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: can't pay attention to. and explain what's going on. And
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: there's a bottom line is anything you read or look
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: at is a lie. And so how we figure all
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: of this out. Now I'll go through that. Just, I
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: don't know where Neil is. Cause we were talking about
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: the 14th of November, Saturday, the foodie, his show, the
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: fork report is going to be broadcast from the wild fork.
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: in Laguna Niguel and it's thanks grilling, which we do
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: every year. And of course I'll be there with Neil
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: and love to have you guys come by, say hello
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: and grab some of the great, great food that we're
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: offering for free. Okay. Uh, what's going on in terms
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: of the election? Well, you know, this week is going
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: to be kind of crazy as you would think. And
• 1:08
  Speaker 1: I think it's fair to say that the Trump administration,
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: the Republicans in general, are trying to stave off any
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: kind of a vote that goes against them. It's been
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: said many times that if a Republican doesn't win, it
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: is not a free election. Case in point, you've got California.
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: The request made by the feds with California voting is
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: that California should set aside 20,000 ballots from voters whose
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: citizenship it questions, the administration questions. In other words, we
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: have these 20,000 votes that we think may be a
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: problem with citizenship. Therefore, you, the state of California, should
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: set the voting aside. Don't count these until you, the
• 1:59
  Speaker 1: state of California, have figured out whether these are citizens
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: or not. Well, of course, state's going to go pound sand.
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: And so the lower court, didn't rule on it. They
• 2:08
  Speaker 1: went to federal court, the administration, asking for that decision,
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: saying California must set aside those 20,000 ballots. And the
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: lower court did not make a decision. It said, we'll
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: make it, we're under consideration, but we're going to hold
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: off right now, which means the vote is going to
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: go on as it's supposed to. Well, the administration went
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: straight to the appeals court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal,
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: And the Ninth Circuit Court, even though it hasn't ruled,
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: but it will within the next few days, asked a
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: couple of questions saying, OK, how about this? You didn't
• 2:47
  Speaker 1: even get a decision from the lower court. What are
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: you appealing? That's a problem. This was a Sunday hearing.
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: And the appeals court was questioning Trump administration's request to intervene.
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: to force California to set aside those ballots. And Judge
• 3:09
  Speaker 1: Mark Bennett said, while the executive branch is clearly unhappy
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: with what California law requires for ensuring voters are citizens,
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: the state has a right to determine the manner of elections.
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: Look at the election clause of the Constitution, of which
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: clearly the administration is trying to ignore. And so Bennett said,
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: it seems to me that you want us to issue
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: an injunction that is entirely inconsistent with the law that
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: California legislature has adopted pursuant to the elections clause of
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: the Constitution. How can we do that? Well, the Justice
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: Department attorney said, well, we have good reason to believe
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: those ballots are from ineligible non-citizen voters. And we have
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: the legal right under separate federal criminal law to challenge
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: their tabulation of Until state officials can prove otherwise. Okay,
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: the judges said fine. Where did you get the 20,000 figure?
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: How did you come up with that? They didn't have
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: an answer. What third party, what mechanism did you come
• 4:11
  Speaker 1: up with 20,000 ballots are from non-citizens? You want to
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: tell us how you got there? They couldn't answer that question.
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: It's just we said it. Therefore, it must be. Same
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: thing that happened in the 2020 election. All the fraud
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: that occurred that the Trump administration now and at that
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: time the Trump campaign said. All the fraud. And when
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: asked what fraud, come up with some kind of proof.
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: We don't have to prove. All we have to do
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: is allege. If we say it, it must be true.
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: If we say an election is rigged, it must be rigged.
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: Don't ask us for proof. which, by the way, in
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: that election, it went before 60 judges and not one
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: ruled in favor. So here you've got the appeals court saying,
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: we got a couple of things going on. First of all,
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: we don't think we have jurisdiction at all because you're
• 5:07
  Speaker 1: appealing something that hasn't been decided. How do you appeal
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: a non-decision? That's a problem. And how do you argue,
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: assuming you're appealing a non-decision, how do you argue the Constitution?
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: Which says that the states determine the manner in which
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: elections are held. They determine who's eligible. They determine how
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: that eligibility is construed. They determine whether or not there's
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: a mechanism for figuring out whether they're citizens or non-citizens.
• 5:38
  Speaker 1: A state has this mechanism. And the administration says, we
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: don't like it. Maybe true, by the way. It may
• 5:43
  Speaker 1: be true. that these 20,000 ballots, there's a question as
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: to the non-citizenship of these people. The problem is you
• 5:52
  Speaker 1: make that claim, come up with some kind of proof,
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: any kind of proof other than just saying it. You
• 5:59
  Speaker 1: can't just say stuff. So are they going to lose?
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: Of course they're going to lose. But, you know, same
• 6:07
  Speaker 1: thing's happening with Alaska. And it's just... I don't even
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: know why they bother, by the way, in California, because
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: the state is so blue. Why waste your time? So
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: let's say 20,000 votes. OK, let's say they win. OK,
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: and 20,000 votes are deemed ineligible. Now what? What, you
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: think 20,000 votes are going to change anything? Other than maybe,
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: maybe you're talking about a district, a congressional district that
• 6:33
  Speaker 1: might flip or not flip. Could be. Could be. Okay.
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: Coming back. The Alaska Senate results. And here it is.
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: If a Republican loses, the election is no good. And
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: I'll explain. Actually, there is a little bit of argument here.
• 6:53
  Speaker 1: It's a legitimate argument. That's all it is, is an argument.
• 6:58
  Speaker 1: And I'll share that with you about the Department of
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: Justice going against Alaska, blocking the Alaska vote. And I'll
• 7:05
  Speaker 1: explain that.
• 7:06
  Speaker 2: You're listening to Bill Handel on demand from KFI AM 640.
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: What a week it's going to be. Tomorrow is or
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: Tuesday is the Israeli. That's right. It is tomorrow. The
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: Israeli election. I'm going to talk about that big time
• 7:20
  Speaker 1: because that affects us a lot. And then, of course,
• 7:23
  Speaker 1: next Tuesday is our midterms. Going to talk about that
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: a whole lot. And coming up at the bottom of
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: the hour, I'm going to start with the voter guide,
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: the way I'm going to vote, which you cannot and
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: should not follow along. OK, another Trump administration attempt to
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: somehow interfere with the election. And this one has to
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: do with the Alaska Senate, the race, because there are
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: two Dan Sullivans running, both Republican. And there is one Democrat,
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: Mary Peltola. And what the Trump administration is doing, they
• 8:01
  Speaker 1: have moved to say that the certification should be blocked
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: if the Republican loses. In other words, it's a valid
• 8:13
  Speaker 1: election only if the Republican wins. Now, is there some
• 8:16
  Speaker 1: argument there? Yeah, there very well may be confusion because
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: you have two Dan Sullivans that are running. And therefore,
• 8:23
  Speaker 1: are they going to split the vote? And therefore, will
• 8:25
  Speaker 1: there be confusion? And the Trump administration is saying, yes,
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: there's going to be confusion. So therefore, you, Alaska, have
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: to deny the vote and figure out until we figure
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: out whether or not there's number one confusion and whether
• 8:44
  Speaker 1: there was an intent to confuse. Because the second Dan Sullivan,
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: according to the Republicans, is not running because he wants
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: to run. It's because he wants to help the Democrat. Now,
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: he did register as a Republican. He was independent, registered
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: just before filing his paperwork. So there's some argument there.
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: But here's the problem. We know what you were thinking.
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: We don't care what you say. We are saying you
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: intended to divide the vote. No, I didn't. I just
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: ran because I.
• 9:14
  Speaker 2: Want to run.
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: No, no. You ran to somehow split up the vote.
• 9:21
  Speaker 1: Any proof that you have that that's what I intend
• 9:24
  Speaker 1: to do? No, but if we say it, it must
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: be true. If it is raining and we tell you
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: the sun is out, it must be true. But wait
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: a minute, I'm looking at a blue sky. No, no,
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: we tell you it's raining, therefore it must be true.
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: And so now what happens? Well, number one, they have
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: some formula saying that if The Republican vote is split
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: by a certain amount. Therefore, their Republican, their Dan Sullivan,
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: the Republican Dan Sullivan, the real one, the real. senator
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: running for reelection, he would have won the race. And
• 10:06
  Speaker 1: how do you figure that out? Well, you do a formula.
• 10:08
  Speaker 1: You split the vote and you look at the split
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: vote and you say, okay, a percentage of that would
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: have gone to the real Dan Sullivan. And therefore, if
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: the real Dan Sullivan doesn't win, Or even the Republican
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: Dan Sullivan, who is not the real Dan Sullivan, even though,
• 10:27
  Speaker 1: of course, that's Dan Sullivan. Anyway, any time that a
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: Democrat wins under these circumstances, it is unfair. And then
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: the question is, OK, let's say it is unfair. How
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: do you know who voted for who? Were you confused? Well, OK,
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: I'm not confused. We'll tell you you're confused. OK. How
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: do you find out if I'm confused or not? You
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: ask me who I voted for. But wait a minute.
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: You can't ask me who I voted for. It's a
• 10:58
  Speaker 1: secret election. The ballot is secret. Not in this case.
• 11:04
  Speaker 1: In this case, we're going to ask you who you
• 11:06
  Speaker 1: voted for. Now, are they actually going to do that? No,
• 11:10
  Speaker 1: they're going to come up with their formula to determine
• 11:14
  Speaker 1: whether or not. And the problem here is that it
• 11:17
  Speaker 1: is such a close race that confusion could, in fact,
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: make the or give the Democrat the win. And it
• 11:30
  Speaker 1: is absolutely true that if there was only Dan Sullivan
• 11:34
  Speaker 1: running the incumbent, it would be a more fair race,
• 11:37
  Speaker 1: assuming that no confusion happened. Absolutely. It could be true.
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: How about some proof? Well, we really don't have to because, again,
• 11:47
  Speaker 1: if we say it, it must be true. If, for example,
• 11:51
  Speaker 1: we say the election was rigged in 2020, it must
• 11:54
  Speaker 1: be true. How about some evidence? There is no evidence
• 11:59
  Speaker 1: that you've been able to come up with. It doesn't
• 12:02
  Speaker 1: matter what we say. It must be true. Just an
• 12:06
  Speaker 1: allegation that the Republicans bring forward is enough evidence. Is
• 12:10
  Speaker 1: the court going to do anything about this? Absolutely not.
• 12:12
  Speaker 1: By the way, the state, which is the state of
• 12:16
  Speaker 1: Alaska itself, which is very Republican, the state department or
• 12:23
  Speaker 1: their attorney general was in favor of what the administration
• 12:27
  Speaker 1: wants to do. Here's the problem. What do you do
• 12:30
  Speaker 1: with the law? How do you do that? How do
• 12:33
  Speaker 1: you prove that the person ran there for the purposes
• 12:36
  Speaker 1: of screwing up the vote? Where's the proof? Where's the beef?
• 12:43
  Speaker 1: We need no beef. All we have to do is
• 12:45
  Speaker 1: tell you there's beef. Go to Wendy's and you ask,
• 12:50
  Speaker 1: where's the beef? Well, the beef is in the bun,
• 12:52
  Speaker 1: but there's no beef. We tell you there's beef. Therefore,
• 12:56
  Speaker 1: there's beef. All right. Coming up, voter guide. I'm going
• 13:02
  Speaker 1: to do prop one and two and then go into
• 13:05
  Speaker 1: a general overview of how you how these propositions work
• 13:11
  Speaker 1: and a little bit of history too, why we do propositions.
• 13:15
  Speaker 1: And we'll be right back.
• 13:17
  Speaker 2: You're listening to Bill Handel on demand from KFI AM 640.
• 13:22
  Speaker 1: What a week this is going to be. First of all,
• 13:24
  Speaker 1: the Israeli elections tomorrow I'm going to be talking about
• 13:26
  Speaker 1: because that really is important to us and to the
• 13:31
  Speaker 1: state of Israel, which way that's going to go and
• 13:33
  Speaker 1: the state of Palestine, if it's ever going to be
• 13:35
  Speaker 1: a state. So I'm going to talk about that. And
• 13:39
  Speaker 1: then of course, next Tuesday is our midterm election. And
• 13:43
  Speaker 1: I am going to do my voter guide, which I
• 13:46
  Speaker 1: do every single year. And it's about the way I
• 13:49
  Speaker 1: am going to vote. Hopefully it doesn't influence that all
• 13:51
  Speaker 1: the way you are going to vote other than trying
• 13:54
  Speaker 1: to understand what these propositions are about. Now, why propositions?
• 13:59
  Speaker 1: Why do we have the ability of the people of
• 14:02
  Speaker 1: the state of California passing laws, not through the legislature? Well,
• 14:08
  Speaker 1: Because at one point, the legislature at the turn of
• 14:11
  Speaker 1: the last century was so corrupt that the only way
• 14:14
  Speaker 1: the people actually were able to get a vote was
• 14:16
  Speaker 1: through the propositions. And that has reversed itself. Now the
• 14:22
  Speaker 1: proposition method is so corrupt and everybody lies. So here
• 14:28
  Speaker 1: is a rule of thumb. You are probably inundated with mailers.
• 14:33
  Speaker 1: I am. where it's costing a fortune to mail these
• 14:39
  Speaker 1: postcards and these flyers out. And every one of them
• 14:43
  Speaker 1: is a lie.
• 14:45
  Speaker 2: That's it.
• 14:45
  Speaker 1: It's that simple. What you see on TV and hear
• 14:49
  Speaker 1: on radio reference to the propositions is a lie. One
• 14:53
  Speaker 1: side or the other is making an argument. The taxes
• 14:59
  Speaker 1: or Americans for no taxes. Okay. Look at the language
• 15:04
  Speaker 1: if you look very closely. Well, it is a little obfuscation.
• 15:08
  Speaker 1: It's a little misleading. Also, look at who is backing
• 15:12
  Speaker 1: up the propositions. That is fairly recent because it used
• 15:17
  Speaker 1: to be you had no idea who was backing the propositions.
• 15:20
  Speaker 1: At least you have an idea now which side is going. So,
• 15:24
  Speaker 1: for example, Prop 1. That is, I'm going to tell
• 15:29
  Speaker 1: you what exactly it is. It is a bond measure
• 15:34
  Speaker 1: in which I think, what, how many billions of dollars
• 15:39
  Speaker 1: are being okayed for this bond? $ 11 billion in general
• 15:46
  Speaker 1: obligation bonds. What does that mean? That means the state
• 15:50
  Speaker 1: borrows the money and sells bonds. And so if we
• 15:55
  Speaker 1: say yes to the sale of the bonds, that means
• 15:59
  Speaker 1: that over the port of 25 years, it's paid off.
• 16:05
  Speaker 1: It's effectively amortized. It's a mortgage. And so we sell
• 16:10
  Speaker 1: bonds a lot. Doesn't mean they all sell, but we
• 16:13
  Speaker 1: authorize bonds. And this one is $ 11 billion. State housing programs.
• 16:21
  Speaker 1: Affordable multifamily housing, that's $ 7. 2 billion. Home ownership programs, that
• 16:28
  Speaker 1: is $ 1. 1 billion to support home ownership for low and
• 16:31
  Speaker 1: moderate income households. Infrastructure programs, part of that is $ 500
• 16:36
  Speaker 1: million for infrastructure, affordable housing developments, water, sewage, parks, etc.
• 16:44
  Speaker 1: Farm worker program, $ 450 million in loans and grants to build,
• 16:49
  Speaker 1: renovate housing for farm workers. $ 350 million for higher education
• 16:55
  Speaker 1: split between the UCs and California State University and tribal programs,
• 17:01
  Speaker 1: $ 200 million in grants to tribes. And you've got local
• 17:05
  Speaker 1: pilot programs and some veteran housing money. Now, what does
• 17:10
  Speaker 1: that mean in terms of real dollars? Is that costing
• 17:13
  Speaker 1: us dollars? Oh, you bet. Increased pay costs to repay
• 17:17
  Speaker 1: the $ 10 billion bond for housing, just the housing part,
• 17:22
  Speaker 1: It's going to cost us $ 500 million to $ 600 million
• 17:25
  Speaker 1: every year for about 25 years. Now, this seems like
• 17:32
  Speaker 1: a lot of money, but in reality, the annual cost
• 17:35
  Speaker 1: for this bond is about 1% of the total of
• 17:41
  Speaker 1: the general fund budget, the amount of money that comes
• 17:43
  Speaker 1: into the state. Okay, I mean, that's small potatoes, right?
• 17:46
  Speaker 1: It's 1%. But how many bonds do you think have
• 17:48
  Speaker 1: been sold over the last 30, 40 years? We're $ 250
• 17:51
  Speaker 1: billion into bond repayment money. And a whole lot of
• 17:56
  Speaker 1: money is being used. Now, does this mean that we
• 18:01
  Speaker 1: have to make up $ 12 billion, $ 11 billion in one
• 18:05
  Speaker 1: fell swoop? No, it's paid over 25 years. And that
• 18:10
  Speaker 1: sort of lowers it. It's like a mortgage, right, as
• 18:12
  Speaker 1: I said. You're buying a house for a million dollars.
• 18:15
  Speaker 1: You have to come up with a million dollars. No,
• 18:17
  Speaker 1: you come up with a million dollars over 30 years.
• 18:21
  Speaker 1: And of course you pay interest. Same thing with bonds.
• 18:24
  Speaker 1: People buy governmental bonds. And the government pays interest and
• 18:30
  Speaker 1: the people who buy the bonds get interest. And the
• 18:33
  Speaker 1: reason they sell is because this isn't some mortgage borrowing money.
• 18:39
  Speaker 1: This is the state mortgage, not a mortgage holder, a
• 18:42
  Speaker 1: mortgage borrower. This is the state of California. I mean, that's,
• 18:48
  Speaker 1: you know, it's a pretty safe investment. Although the state
• 18:52
  Speaker 1: can go bankrupt, by the way. A lot of people
• 18:54
  Speaker 1: don't know that. A county, Orange County, went bankrupt years ago.
• 19:01
  Speaker 1: And in Washington, one of the major utilities went bankrupt.
• 19:07
  Speaker 1: And it could be insurmountable. Right now, the state is
• 19:09
  Speaker 1: not in bad shape, even though we have an enormous
• 19:13
  Speaker 1: amount of debt over these bonds that were sold. We're
• 19:17
  Speaker 1: bringing in enough money right now. revenues are pretty good
• 19:21
  Speaker 1: right now, but the problem with California, I'll talk about
• 19:24
  Speaker 1: that later on are basically our entire budget is our
• 19:27
  Speaker 1: entire revenues predicated on income tax. And that's a whole
• 19:30
  Speaker 1: nother story that goes up and down. Okay. So all
• 19:33
  Speaker 1: of this money, $ 11 billion loan, how ridiculous it is.
• 19:36
  Speaker 1: How am I voting for it? I'm voting. Yes. I
• 19:42
  Speaker 1: know Amy is going crazy. Uh, I am voting. Yes.
• 19:46
  Speaker 1: I'll tell you why I am voting for more taxes
• 19:49
  Speaker 1: and why I Because I believe that this money for
• 19:52
  Speaker 1: housing is pretty important stuff to make some Californians who
• 19:57
  Speaker 1: couldn't afford housing here at all. And here is why.
• 20:00
  Speaker 1: Here's why. The choice to live in California is my choice.
• 20:06
  Speaker 1: I could move to another state. And not pay income tax.
• 20:09
  Speaker 1: But I choose to live here. And I know which
• 20:12
  Speaker 1: way the government is going. And I know the affordability
• 20:16
  Speaker 1: problem here. I absolutely know how difficult it is to
• 20:21
  Speaker 1: live in California, especially for poor people. So I'm voting yes.
• 20:26
  Speaker 1: I'm voting yes. OK, I was going to do prop
• 20:28
  Speaker 1: two also. That's an easy one to do, but I'll
• 20:31
  Speaker 1: do that tomorrow in addition to the other props, because
• 20:34
  Speaker 1: that is that's a two minute conversation and then it's over.
• 20:37
  Speaker 1: So as I shock Amy, where I'm actually saying yes
• 20:41
  Speaker 1: to more taxes, not very much, but, you know, it's
• 20:45
  Speaker 1: a little bit here, a little bit there. Gas goes
• 20:48
  Speaker 1: up a quarter of a cent and it goes up
• 20:49
  Speaker 1: a half a cent. These little tiny amounts. Well, they
• 20:52
  Speaker 1: add up. They add up. God, you're the problem. I
• 20:56
  Speaker 1: am the problem. I know that. And this one is
• 20:58
  Speaker 1: against what I normally would do. But yeah, I'm voting
• 21:03
  Speaker 1: yes on that one. Go figure. Okay. Shoppers think retailers
• 21:10
  Speaker 1: are using AI to jack up prices. Of course they are,
• 21:13
  Speaker 1: but they're saying no, absolutely not. I'll give you the
• 21:17
  Speaker 1: reality check, tell you what's actually happening in that world.
• 21:21
  Speaker 2: You're listening to Bill Handel on demand from KFI AM 640.
• 21:26
  Speaker 1: A couple things are going on. U.S. forces in the
• 21:28
  Speaker 1: Middle East are prepared to launch major military operations against
• 21:32
  Speaker 1: Iran within 96 hours of receiving an order from the president. Okay,
• 21:37
  Speaker 1: that's news. What do they do? Just wait? Of course not. And, oh,
• 21:42
  Speaker 1: calendar this one, November 14th. Saturday, a Neil show, which
• 21:47
  Speaker 1: is going to be done. The Fork Report is going
• 21:49
  Speaker 1: to be at the Wild Fork store in Laguna Niguel,
• 21:54
  Speaker 1: where I'm going to be joining him and there'll be
• 21:56
  Speaker 1: samples galore, which is going to be a lot of
• 21:59
  Speaker 1: fun when we do those broadcasts. We do that every year. Thanks, Grilling. Okay,
• 22:04
  Speaker 1: here we go in terms of AI. Here's another little
• 22:08
  Speaker 1: story about AI. American shoppers are really concerned that retailers
• 22:12
  Speaker 1: and restaurants are using AI and personal data to charge
• 22:16
  Speaker 1: higher prices. Walmart, McDonald's, Kroger deny this completely. They're not
• 22:21
  Speaker 1: raising prices using AI. Some states have passed laws restricting
• 22:27
  Speaker 1: data-driven pricing, and I don't know how AI works on
• 22:33
  Speaker 1: this level. And I'm going to go into it a
• 22:36
  Speaker 1: little bit because I have yet to figure out or
• 22:39
  Speaker 1: have been told exactly how AI works. What we do
• 22:43
  Speaker 1: know is this is AI-induced price anxiety because American shoppers
• 22:47
  Speaker 1: are convinced— that businesses, retailers, restaurants, rideshare, grocers, are developing
• 22:55
  Speaker 1: or deploying technology to charge higher prices. And they worry
• 23:00
  Speaker 1: that businesses using AI and other technology quickly change prices
• 23:04
  Speaker 1: by assessing their needs or profiles. Well, prices do change.
• 23:08
  Speaker 1: You know, for example, Lyft and Uber do change their price,
• 23:13
  Speaker 1: but it's based on demand. not based on AI looking
• 23:18
  Speaker 1: at who's buying what where. And these major companies are saying, no,
• 23:22
  Speaker 1: we haven't at all. And one of the real problems,
• 23:26
  Speaker 1: as far as the deniers are concerned, is that prices
• 23:31
  Speaker 1: on goods are moving towards these little electronic markets uh,
• 23:38
  Speaker 1: pricing labels. And what they're saying is you see the
• 23:41
  Speaker 1: electronic thing that can change from minute to minute, second
• 23:44
  Speaker 1: by second. And AI knows who you are as you pass,
• 23:49
  Speaker 1: or you're grabbing for the item. And therefore the pricing is, uh,
• 23:55
  Speaker 1: reduced or increased, uh, because you buy that or want that. And, uh,
• 24:00
  Speaker 1: I don't, so how about the person next to you shopping?
• 24:03
  Speaker 1: Does the price change for that person? And other than
• 24:08
  Speaker 1: face recognition and you reaching for a product, I don't
• 24:12
  Speaker 1: know how they do this. Now, the grocers, et cetera, say, yeah,
• 24:17
  Speaker 1: we do change prices. But if you look at the studies,
• 24:22
  Speaker 1: what we do is reduce prices, use those and we
• 24:25
  Speaker 1: reduce prices using them as loss leaders. And we wouldn't
• 24:31
  Speaker 1: increase prices unless, and I've never seen this at the store,
• 24:35
  Speaker 1: increasing prices as demand is met. They just run out
• 24:38
  Speaker 1: of the product. And a lot of it is just,
• 24:43
  Speaker 1: I don't understand this. I really don't. I know retailers
• 24:48
  Speaker 1: that move prices around constantly, but loyalty programs based on
• 24:54
  Speaker 1: purchase history, but never instantaneously based on AI. By the way,
• 25:00
  Speaker 1: research on digital self-labels in the U.S. and Europe, and
• 25:04
  Speaker 1: by the way, in Europe, grocers have widely used this
• 25:07
  Speaker 1: technology for more than a decade, found that the labels
• 25:11
  Speaker 1: that change do not lead to surge pricing because the
• 25:16
  Speaker 1: price changes are obvious to anybody walking by. What they've
• 25:20
  Speaker 1: done is use the labels to discount goods that are
• 25:22
  Speaker 1: about to expire and reducing food waste. Now, when they're
• 25:26
  Speaker 1: about to expire, not an issue. And the retailers say,
• 25:30
  Speaker 1: you know, the digital label save time and paper and, and, and, and. So,
• 25:37
  Speaker 1: you know, the fright about AI when you figure it out.
• 25:40
  Speaker 1: And by the way, asking these folks, how exactly is
• 25:42
  Speaker 1: AI being used? Because I don't know. I mean, think
• 25:46
  Speaker 1: about that. Okay. Makes no sense. Okay. Coming up. Now,
• 25:52
  Speaker 1: who said at the top department of war, we do training,
• 25:56
  Speaker 1: not trannies. Or no fatties, no trannies, no beardos, no weirdos,
• 26:02
  Speaker 1: no wimps, no radicals. Yep, that's our Secretary of Defense.
• 26:08
  Speaker 1: Quite the guy, isn't he? And I'll share that story
• 26:12
  Speaker 1: with you and how trannies, as he puts it, are
• 26:16
  Speaker 1: not being thrown out of the military. But wait a minute,
• 26:19
  Speaker 1: that's the policy. The Secretary of Defense has ordered that.
• 26:23
  Speaker 2: Nope.
• 26:24
  Speaker 1: And I'll explain what's going on with that. This is
• 26:28
  Speaker 1: KFI AM 640. You've been listening to The Bill Handel Show.
• 26:33
  Speaker 1: Catch my show Monday through Friday, 6 a.m. to 9 a.m.
• 26:36
  Speaker 1: and anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app.