A Victory For The Rule of Law | February 26, 2021

Here's your conservative, not bitter host, Todd Huff.
Well, that is right. You are listening to the homos, conservative, not bitter talk. I'm your host, Todd Huff. And you know that a democrat is back in the White House when we're bombing Syria again. Anyway, email, Todd, The Todd Huff show.com facebook.com slash The Todd Huff Show. And you can stream the program there. Or YouTube I guess for the time being until YouTube permanently censors us. By the way, if you watch this program on YouTube, I encourage you to either download the podcast find this on Facebook tune into freedom 95, which you can listen to also on the tune in app. Because it's a matter of time before we get censored. They're welcome. And it is good to be here as as always. So I want to start this morning by talking about what I consider a victory, a rare victory today. For the rule of law, a rare victory for the rule of law, the parliamentarian in the Senate. And the Senate has ruled that the minimum wage, the minimum wage cannot be included in the reconciliation bill. Now, I don't want to get this is easy to get into the weeds here. But suffice it to say this, and we've talked about this a couple of weeks ago. But suffice it to say that the parliamentarian in the Senate is their job is to interpret the rules of the Senate and to apply them regardless of personal preference. You know, you can say like a Justice of the Supreme Court is supposed to do it or a judge in general. They're not supposed to be concerned about the politics of it. They're not supposed to be concerned about ramifications of their ruling. They're just supposed to say the law or the rules of the Senate in this case, say that this is what can be done. So we have this reconciliation bill. Right, this reconciliation bill for COVID. Relief COVID relief number 405. I think now. So anyway, the parliamentarians job, okay, half step back, the reason that the democrats want to use reconciliation, but the budget reconciliation is because they still have the filibuster rule in the Senate, the filibuster rule in the senate effectively says that if you have that you need 60 senators to vote to end debate on a particular issue. So what does that mean? That means that unless the vast majority 60% three fifths of the senate want to vote on a bill, they can use this tool called the filibuster to continue debating it. And what this does is that it keeps it from being voted upon which technically, or practically speaking, causes the majority rule of the Senate to go out the window, and to where you have to have a supermajority 60% to get anything effectively done. For those of you that study this closely or for those of you that follow this closely, you'll know that there was a term called the nuclear option that was coined, I think, by McConnell, back when he was the Minority Leader of the senate when in the past, because democrats started using what he called the nuclear option on approving judges, federal court judges, and this is what ultimately led to the nuclear option being used and the filibuster being eliminated for you know, Supreme Court justices. And this ultimately, is what allowed the Supreme Court nominees of Donald J. Trump to be you know, to be voted upon and a simple 51 vote majority for those. So the Democrats, some of them are clamoring to get rid of the filibuster because after all, they have the majority Well, technically, it's split even so split evenly in the Senate. But Kamala Harris turns out, as I've said before, Sarah Palin was right back in 2008, that one of the roles of the Vice President of the United States is to be the president of the us senate and cast, the tie breaking vote in situations where it's a 5050 split. And so that gives them Kamala Harris gives the democrats the majority of the US Senate. So this makes some of the radical left say, Look, man, we can't, we can't get anything done without getting rid of the filibuster. But then some of them say, look, if we just lose a couple of these seats, and we lose the presidency, and 2024, or even lose a couple seats in the, in the senate itself in 2022, we're gonna be in trouble, because now the republicans can get rid of the filibuster? Well, we'll have set that precedent. And so they're hesitant to do this. So what they've tried to do is to use this tool called budget reconciliation, which we've talked about before, which basically says, For certain types of Bills, Bills that address spending deficits, there's a very clear and technical set of rules that determines what is, I shouldn't say, very clear, as clear as can be in this world of politics, I guess. But there's a series of rules that say these are the types of things that must happen for something to qualify for budget reconciliation. And so budget reconciliation only needs 51 votes, it does not need 60 votes, it is it is one of the one of the things that has a kind of a bypass mechanism around the filibuster. And so they thought that they were all set up to cram down a minute crammed down the throats of the American public, particularly the business community, the minimum wage increase, they thought that they were all set to have a $15 an hour minimum wage increase, which the federal minimum wage today is what 750. So literally doubling this over the next I think it was phased in over was it five years, four or five years. And so they thought that they had they could make the case that that was a something that qualified for budget reconciliation, however, however, as they found out yesterday, actually last night, the parliamentarian of the Senate. Again, this is the person who is responsible for interpreting and applying the rules appropriately so that they do things according to the law and their own rules. rule that this is not part of budget reconciliation. I want to read you a bit from the New York Times. Just listen to listen to how this is talked about. It is truly remarkable to me how these, these radical leftists that this passes is unbiased news, by the way as well. headline here, top senate official disqualifies a minimum minimum wage from stimulus plan, the parliamentarian rule that the provision which would gradually increase the wage to $15 an hour violated the strict budgetary rules that limit what can be included in the package. By the way, exactly right. Look, budget reconciliation was not designed to be something that allowed the Senate to circumvent their own rules to pass things that should be put into legislation. So this is a victory in my estimation for the rule of law. This is written by a journalist named Emily Cochran, New York Times. She writes this democrats suffered a major setback on Thursday in their bid to push through a $15 an hour minimum wage as part of President Biden's 1.9 trillion with a tea. I encourage you to write that number out sometime. Remarkably large. Nonetheless $1.9 trillion stimulus package after the Senate's top rule enforcers said that the increase cannot be included in the bill. The decision effectively knocked out a crucial plank of Mr. Biden's plan championed by liberals. Of course it is because it is a liberal plan. It is a prank plan of the radical left, just as Mr. Biden is a president who endorses the ideology. By and large of the left even the radical left. I can she continues here and demonstrated the perils of the democrats strategy, the fast track package of the sweeping pandemic aid legislation, part of an effort to steer around republican obstruction, part of an effort to steer around republican obstruction. You know, I hate to be the bearer of the bad news or to Emily Cocker, but there are different viewpoints in this nation. And some of those viewpoints are held by people who are in The Senate and in the House of Representatives, but we're talking here about the Senate in particular. So if you oppose this, you're an obstructionist. What? What is this? This is this passes, by the way, just for those of you taking notes and want to know, when people like me would say it's fake news or it's not a biased news report. Here's a perfect example. What is what is objectively obstructionist about that? What is an objectively obstructionist about wanting to make sure, first and foremost, first and foremost that the rules of the senator follow? There's a novel concept, I wish that there was a parliamentarian for the supreme court? Maybe, maybe these rulings would be different. I don't really because you can't really do that. But the point is, wouldn't that be nice if someone could say, no, that's not you're not applying the law there. You're, you're engaging in sophistry, you are, you know, writing an opinion based upon something that is not rooted in the constitution not rooted in the law. But we don't have that there. And you really can't I'm not suggesting I'm just saying, could you imagine if there was someone who had this sort of interpretive authority here, over the Supreme Court, as we have here over the Senate. So but it's obstruction as to oppose raising the minimum wage. It's an obstructionist to oppose anything that Democrats want to do. It's a 5050 split Senate. Miss Cochran, I know you think that you are doing your part two? Well, I think she probably thinks that she's being unbiased. But give me a break. This is not an objectively obstructionist. This is objectively just part of politics. Part of politics. And I want to talk a little bit more about the minimum wage as well. We talked about this a couple of I don't know, two, three weeks ago. The government interjecting itself here is not a good thing. I'm telling you, it is not a good thing. I would like for people to make more money. I think that that is a good thing. I also think that it's a good thing for people to be healthier, and to be I don't know, take your pick. better, more intelligent, can we legislate these things? I think it's a good thing. If people if more people have a relate and Well, I think it's a good thing. If everyone has a relationship with with God, Jesus, you don't legislate these things. I mean, the idea here, that you can somehow arbitrarily force people to make more money and have no consequence whatsoever, is beyond naive to me. Beyond naive to me, but it's a victory in the short term here for this not to be included in budget reconciliation, because at least requires that this go through the normal procedures of the Senate. Not Bernie Sanders is out there saying he's gonna try to do some work around to where he's going to effectively try to get people in the business owners to be punished if they don't pay their so instead of forcing them to pay people $15 an hour, which they can't get in this bill. Bernie says this, I'm confident that we have a majority in the US Senate, including the vice president that would vote to increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour as part of America's rescue plan. Yet, because of the archaic and undemocratic rules of the Senate, I guess he's referring to the filibuster, the normal processes and having a parliamentarian who actually interprets what's supposed to be said and done, as it pertains to behavior and the way legislation is passed in the Senate. He continues, we are unable to move forward and end to end starvation wages, there's a new term I've heard living wages, I don't know that I've heard of starvation wages in this country, and raise the income of 32 million struggling Americans. He said he would try an alternative approach here, according to the New York Times proposing an addition to the stimulus measure that would tack take take tax deductions away from companies that fail to pay their workers at least $15 an hour. So if you can't get that forced them to buy the law, you must pay this amount. Now we're going to punish you if you don't, because some arcane measure Bernie Sanders says, allows companies to pay their employees starvation wages. I mean, this that even defies common sense, starvation wages. Again, I'm sure the New York Times and this is this is a very unbiased and objective way in which to present the story of course they can present Bernie Sanders perspective. But believe me, you The New York Times is completely on board with Bernie Sanders perspective as it pertains to the minimum wage and Guess how those wages are now starvation wages? Anyway, timeout is an order continue this discussion after the break, you're listening here to them conservative, not bitter talk. I'm your host, Todd Huff back here in just a minute.


Welcome back. Okay, so, so so so I want to talk to you more about the minimum wage. And that talked about this before, a couple of weeks ago, but I, you know, I know that there is, it sounds good, right? It sounds good to say, oh, my goodness, you're not making enough money, you're not making enough money and it, it builds some sort of bond, I guess, with constituents or with people that follow you to say, I'm going to make sure that your company pays you what you're worth, I'm going to make sure that your company at least pays you a living wage, I'm going to make sure Bernie Sanders says that I'm going to end starvation, wages, starvation, wages for you, I'm gonna step in and fix it, I'm going to be your knight in shining armor, I am going to be your hero government is going to save you from the perils, the pitfalls, the nastiness of the private sector of the the economy, that's what we're here for, we're to protect you from the big bad evil guy. And look, I'm not saying that corporations are always right, or that they're always I don't know, just good intentioned, or just benevolence or whatever. That's, by the way, with the politically correct culture we live in, they look at these issues and try to find opportunities to make it look like that they are such great things, they look actively look for things to, you know, to show their, you know, their customers or their prospects, just how much they care. And look, sometimes it's for it's for very good reason. There's a whole mixture, we're dealing with people ultimately. And so when you deal with people, there's a whole host of motivations and so forth. But when it comes to the minimum wage, I've said this before, your value, my value as a human being is intrinsic. It is we were born with it, because we're created in the image of God. Right. And so Bill Gates, his intrinsic value, now hear me out is no higher than anyone else on the face of the planet. Now, Bill Gates value in certain areas, because of what he's done. And the success, he said, and the wealth he's built. He has created financial gain. Whenever you think of Bill Gates, maybe that's a bad example, many of you probably hate Bill Gates, but just forget about that for a moment, take away all the other ancillary stuff. And just the point is, is that a person's value as a human being is not tied to his or her earnings. Right? These are different things. You don't treat someone better, least You better not. Because they have more money than someone else. In fact, it's been said, and I agree with this. If you want to know the true character of a person, look at how he or she treats someone who can do nothing for him. Look at how he treats someone on the janitorial staff or a server at a restaurant, you've seen people on business meetings, they're all professional and kind and courteous to the person they're meeting with for the business lunch. And then they treat the waiter, like absolute garbage, excuse me, the server, the 1980s called and once their terminology back the server, as I've been taught to say, you can't treat your server poorly. And be a good person basically, is the idea here. And that's because the way you treat people, the way I treat people is should be one of the top priorities in our minds. But what we how we treat them and what we pay are not the same thing. You don't just simply pay somebody more because you like them. You shouldn't anyway, if you do that, as a business owner very long your business will suffer. You might get lawsuits along the way as well. But you can't pay someone more you shouldn't pay someone more just because you like them or you can't treat them. You know, like if you're if you're a democratic congressman running for office and you have your spouse, manage your campaign and you pay them exorbitant amount of money from your campaign to run your campaign or in the case of Bernie Sanders. Why To do his media placement, which they get 15%, or whatever percentage it is now, off of the placement of those ads. And that's why Bernie is doing quite well, by the way, Bernie, the democratic socialist is doing the better than the rest of us, who are out there living on starvation wages, I guess. Anyway, but this idea, it starts here your value as a person is not based upon your earnings. Your but your value as a person is based upon who you were created in the image of. And that's the image of God. And even if you don't believe that, or want to accept that, that's, that's fine, it gets a little trickier, but it's still, we still understand the value of of a life, right, we still under we still understand and value. That individual, just as potential, maybe just you're at a place today, where you're not earning what you want to earn. That's your earnings are a snapshot in time anyway. In the United States of America, people move back and forth between income classes, if you will, I don't like thinking about classes, but just for the sake of discussion, people move amongst income classes or groups, sometimes multiple times over the course of their lives. You may be in struggling tremendously now and be incredibly, financially blessed in a short matter of time, or vice versa. Anyway, so that's the first thing. The second thing is what in the woods, the value of a job is based upon what the value of the job is, right? In other words, you can't say arbitrarily that every job that every person does, is worth $15 an hour at least. If not, you're paying poverty, you're what was the word you use starvation wages, or he says you're paying starvation wages, which I find ironic, the only way does Bernie pet pays our wages that he takes from tax it, you know, he takes taxes, or donations in the cases of his campaign. And they didn't produce anything. They did not produce a thing. They either get donations or taxation. And then the money that they get is then provided as salary Bernie's that out there producing a deadly darn thing. Get he's lecturing the people that do produce those of you listening to my voice on how to how much you have to pay someone to do any job in your company. So suddenly, every job that every person does is worth at least $15 an hour, regardless of where you live, regardless. I mean, there's dramatic differences between, say the standard of living in San Francisco versus the standard of living in Omaha, Nebraska, or Little Rock, Arkansas, or Santa Fe, New Mexico, take your pick of can't stay the cities around the country that Bernie Sanders and the radical left and they can fix that by just telling businesses Hey, you greedy, no good blankety blanks, pay your people more and quit trying to kill them? By starving them with the terrible wages you're paying them. I'm gonna say something else too. And I'm gonna take a timeout, actually meant to wait to say this after the break. But there's another thing that I think people need to wrap their heads around when it comes to the way to think about employment. And I think that some people have a erroneous claim that it's the job of the business to support their lifestyle. That is not the correct way of looking at it. Anyway, timeout is in order. I'm going to play a soundbite from lindsey graham as well. Lindsey Graham thinks $15 is too much but he still thinks that people should be paid more. Okay, so he's going to do something about it with some Waffle House minimum wage plan. So I'll share that after the break as well. Second half of the program, sit tight, you're listening to conservative, not bitter talk. I am your host Todd Huff back here in just a minute.


Welcome back. Its program Brought to you in part by our friends at Avon insurance associates AIA for the number four low rates.com AIA for low rates.com. If you're in the market for personal and business insurance, consider reaching out to Rick and his team and Avon insurance associates in Avon here in Central Indiana. Again, AIA for the number four low rates.com, AIA for low rates.com. Before I get back to the minimum wage laws and I were talking here during the break. She asked what are we bombing Syria for and we were talking about that and I just think You know, it's just it's remarkable to me and I know we had we were fighting ISIS with Trump and we dropped the the mother of all bombs mo AB Moab Remember that? Think that was in we think that was in Afghanistan. But regardless, remember Trump was supposed to start world war three, Trump was the one that was this this volatile, dangerous person if Trump had done this, and I'm not even saying it shouldn't have been done. I don't. It's just kind of a breaking, you know, story that we're, we've read about a little bit this morning. But if Trump would have done this, you know, how the reporting would be, oh, my goodness, he's starting Armageddon here. President Trump is president Trump didn't start any wars. I mean, it's just a remarkable thing to witness. People don't care, really. It's just something to know, we bombed Syria today, or Well, yesterday, but that's what we talked about here this morning. But anyway, I want to shift gears back to this minimum wage, because I think it's really important because I had a friend. And he told me one time, he's a business owner, he said, you know, you know, time when I, you know, bring in some fresh out of college, folks who are applying for jobs, we talk you didn't do the interview and that sort of thing. He says, it's a remarkable thing. I, I get to the end, and we talk about salary requirements or whatever. And the person will say, Yeah, I want say, $60,000 a year and he said, Okay, well, why do you think you're worth that much? And he said, it was almost stunning to him? How much people? How many? How many? How often people would say things like, Well, you know, I get these student loans to pay off or, well, you know, I got to save money for this or that or I've, you know, want to go do this or whatever it doesn't, you know, something that had nothing to do with the, with the job. It's just this is my life. And the person sitting across the desk from him, looked at him as though it was his job just to like, basically, by being an employer you signed up to provide whatever standard of living the person applying for the job is decided decided that they want in life. That's not the that's not how that's not the right way to look at this. And I'm sure because I know, well, the people that listen to this audience that does not scratch describe 99.9% of you, some of you, a couple of you may that may describe a little bit, but it's rare, statistically rare for that to be the case. But out in the rest of the world. This is a common a common thing. The employer owes someone in exchange for the work provided. And once those two parties agree on what that is, then they should be able to engage in that why do we need? Why do we need the government again, we talked about this not as it pertains to the minimum wage, but as it pertains to other issues, even yesterday, the government's gonna swoop in and suddenly make all things right. There's gonna be Is there a book somewhere that says that this job is worth this much? I mean, of course, they're gonna say that all jobs are worth the same, but they make it sound like there's some objective standard by which they are the enforcers. enforcers of morality. It's immoral business owner to pay this person this much for this work, according to what your perspective, you're not paying them enough to live well. According to what I mean, this is what the job is worth. Right? This is what the job is worth. Look. I love to be able to do things for our team for our folks. But there are always limitations. No matter who you are, there's a limitation. There's a limitation to what you can do. But it's worth what it is worth it is it is the equivalent to me at screaming to God every night if you think that you're unattractive and you say I you know God, I just I can't believe you. You made me this unattractive or even worse go into your parents, your parents and saying you've made me your DNA is a part of me. You've made me this and attractive. Okay, let's just say you're hideously ugly. What do you want your parents to do about it? That's my point. What in the world do they think can be done about this? Well arbitrarily, making the value of a job worth more. There are going to be consequences for that, my friends, there's no way in this world that there cannot be consequences for that because things work a certain way. And if you if you change the way that things are done, if you force people To have to then adjust how they operate. There's going to be ramifications, there will be people lose jobs, the see, what's the budget office, I'm drawing a blank. Because CBO Congressional Budget Office has said that there's, there's going to be lots of lost jobs if we raise the minimum wage to this, but there's gonna be fewer people living in poverty, because the people who live on 715 an hour now are going to live on 15, or whatever the, you know, percentages of those people that actually keep their jobs, our restaurants will close. I mean, this is gonna be tough for small businesses. And by the way, if you want to make more, the best way to make more money is to take on more responsibility, provide more value to your company, help improve the bottom line, these are the ways to do it. Don't sit back, cross your arms and say, This is what I do here. And you're going to pay me this because my time is worth this. Well, I'm not paying you for your time I'm paying you for something to be done. I'm not as paying you to spend your time here. I'm paying you to accomplish a goal and objective to play a role in a task and providing a good or service to our our customers. But people don't understand business. That's another thing I know when I was I studied political science and in college, and I'm telling you, I can understand easily how someone can graduate with a political science degree and think that business and money is evil, I can absolutely understand that. In fact, my senior year and I'm going to take a break my senior year my last one of my last courses was a course called is calm is capitalism really better and it compared and contrasted communism and capitalism Butler University there were eight students in the class for four boys, four girls. And at the end of the class, at the end of the semester, we took a vote. And I'm just here to share the data. You can read into it or just whatever you can not read into it. I'm not suggesting anything. Let me be clear on the top, off the off the top here that I'm not suggesting anything. But there were eight votes. Four people voted for capitalism, four people voted for communism. half the class voted for communism, seniors political science majors Butler University. The year was 2000. Political science majors often go into law school or in other political endeavors. They're working at four congressional offices for all I know, they're starting at think tanks are working at places managing people advancing political philosophy and research and that sort of stuff. Do you not think that that has an impact on average Americans to think, you know, that there's this embrace of of communism, at least half of the people in my class. Anyway, timeout is in order. Mr. potatohead, I can still say that, have you seen this? We'll talk about that. After the break. I still want to play this lindsey graham soundbite talk about Mr. Potato Head to sit tight. Be back here in just a minute.


Welcome back, I told you, I would share this soundbite lindsey graham talking about his plan, the government's play in through the eyes of Lindsey Graham and other Republicans as well, to fix the minimum wage problem here in our country. They're not going to be on board with the $15 an hour, but they can do it more responsibly better than the Democrats. Here's what Lindsey Graham has to say.
On is I know what it's like for businesses to have to absorb increased cost. There's only so much you can pass on to the consumer. So this is the really bad idea. I don't mind looking at increasing the minimum wage in a responsible way. I just met with a waffle house. If you don't know who the Waffle House is, you're not in touch with America. So. So the Waffle House is where the rubber meets the road in terms of affordable good food, and people working hard and living off tips. So they got a plan I'm going to talk to Joe Manchin about, about how to increase the minimum wage, index it to inflation, that will be easier for business and get us to where we want to go. But what these folks are proposing is doubling it at a time when government at the state and local level is pretty much restricting your ability to earn a living. You want a one two punch for small business this is it.
There you go. So I mean, it sounds more responsible than saying we're just gonna raise it businesses suck it up or deal with, you know, the consequences, but it's still Not like he's talked to Waffle House waffle house so suddenly and God bless Waffle House no problems with Waffle House Waffle House thinks that this should be done. Okay, so let's apply this to every business in America. What on earth? Senator Graham? Anyway I just told you I was sure that I don't want to miss this opportunity though because I had a listener said this to me last night. I saw this this morning too but listener emailed me this headline here. Fox News. Hasbro rebranding Mr. Potato Head toy line as gender neutral Potato Head. But not renaming individual toys Mr. Potato Head according to this the article Fox News. The classic Hasbro toy brand which includes the mustachioed Mr. Potato Head and the clean shaven Mrs. Potato Head will soon be rebranded as the gender neutral Potato Head toy line. So won't be it won't be Mr. And Mrs. anymore. It'll be gender, gender neutral. The new branding will be reflected on packaging scheduled to debut later this year. The Associated report Press reported on Thursday. Hasbro says it's Mr. Potato, potato head brand, which includes all kinds of Toy Tubers is being changed simply to potato head in order to better reflect the full line to better reflect Give me a break. We know why you're doing this. Don't tell us to better reflect the full line. This is the California in the state of California they are either looking into or maybe they've already passed the legislation, I don't know. But $1,000 fines for businesses, department stores. You have a girls toy section or girls section in a boy section. You're gonna get fined for that. And the People's Republic of California, by the way, we're Javier bursera is coming from as far as the state that he is. He calls home and he's the h h h h h s pic for Biden. He's facing some nomination problems, doesn't care apparently that there were no free and fair elections in Cuba. He didn't call for those and 97 didn't seem to have a problem with a dictatorship. You know, by the way, if the democrats want to look and find people who are a threat to our democracy, they should look no further than that. The folks like Javier passera quick timeout is an order. You're listening to conservative, not bitter talk. I'm your host Todd back here in just a minute.


Welcome back. I briefly touched on this. I don't have much time but Javier bursera. Biden's HHS pick. He is in 1997. When he was a representative he really did. He would not say he would not come out and speak out against the he went to Cuba he didn't speak out against the conditions in Cuba. He actually wouldn't even basically say it was wrong for them not to have free and fair elections. Now he wants to be the HHS pick. fact he upset even Democrats on the on the caucus he was a part of they they resigned from the caucus 1997 democrats are out there looking to blame magga supporters Trump supporters say that these folks are a threat to our democracy as they say. Meanwhile we get a real threat someone who doesn't seem to apparently have a problem with Fidel Castro in Cuba. It's gonna be the HS h h has picked I've got to go have a great weekend. Thanks for listening. sdg Monday, take care.