Guest Host Mary Walters: Trump Officials Draft Plan to Pay At-Home Parents, Using Funds for Working Ones

0:00Hey, welcome back! If you're just joining us, I am Mary Walter, sitting in for a vacationing, Jesse Kelly. You know, let them take them off, take some time off every now and then. You know, couple of times. And that's good. I'm glad and thank you for allowing me to be here with you. Coming up later in the show, Stephen Moral will be joining us. We're going to talk about this program that I want to discuss with you right now. And if you could get cuts 15 to 17, really great. So because it's been a lot of discussion about this today, I have very, very mixed emotions. And you're lots of joining me here. It's why I want to bring it up. Without our gas, I want to bring up the cuts and everything and have a conversation before he joins us. 877-377-4373-373-3 Super easy number. 877-377-4373-3 or you go to X tag me in a post on X at Mary Walter radio. And I will do my best to

1:00multitask and read your comments at the same time. Let's see. Okay, no somebody else. All right. A lot of comments coming in. And thank you for everyone who's following me. I try to do my best to follow back, but a lot of times it gets passed to me. So I apologize if I don't get you right now. I'll try to get you next time I see a comment from you. All right. So the Trump administration has drafted a proposal that would pay some stay-at-home parents using funds from a federal program that was originally designed to help working families of Ford childcare. It's called the stay-at-home parent childcare subsidy proposal. And it was actually started under the Clinton administration to help low-income and working class families pay for childcare. Okay. The program currently provides about 9,000 per child annually. Now this is in addition to the $3,000 tax credit that they get for having had a kid. Right. So that's on top of that. With funds that are typically paid directly to the childcare provider. So because usually it's a single mom, right. She's got to work. So there is no

2:00one to watch the kids. So she she gets her 9,000 dollar per child to pay for childcare. So that money goes from goes from the government and is paid directly to the childcare provider. And hopefully it's not the leering center. So that part of this bothers me because I see a lot of room for fraud here. Now the funding would come. This this expanded benefits. So the New York Times reported that the plan would create what could become the first federal grant program to directly compensate parents for staying home to raise their children. Now the proposed benefit will only apply to married couples. So they're trying to incentivize getting married in order to have children as opposed to when you have someone in the home. They're the way their income is calculated. You wind up not qualifying for some of these things. And I do believe there is a gap. There is

3:03a gap that when someone starts working and they start to get themselves going in the right direction where they get married, which we want. We want children to go up in homes with people who are married. I'm 100% behind that because if you don't, you're your little valley de Torians running around outside dressed in black block and and swarming a 7-11 and you know destroying it. So I think that having two parents at home, you're much less likely to have your child's name on the 11 o'clock news. So I think it's a good thing. I just don't know if we're going about it the right way. But we had programs in the past that disincentivized it and incentivized this, you know, having kids without a father in the home. And that's backfired on us bigly. All right. So as I said, the funding would come from the child care and development fund that was created during the Clinton administration to help the low income and working class people. Okay. Under this proposal, eligible stay-at-home parents could receive payments directly from the government. Now, to qualify families have to meet

4:06a couple of requirements. You have to be married. You have to have one spouse working at least 35 hours per week. Have the other spouse stay home to care for the children. You have to meet income requirements which vary by state. Unmarried couples with a stay-at-home parent do not qualify nor do single parents who are not employed. Hallelujah. Now, the National Women's Law Center, Amy Metsuwi, works there and she warned that expanding eligibility without increasing funds could create more competition for already limited sources. Yes, if you're going to start giving this pot of money that Congress has has appropriated for this program for this purpose and you're going to put a whole bunch of other people on it. They're not all going to be getting $9,000 anymore. There's not enough money. I'm terrible at math. Terrible at math. I tell my husband all the time, my math blind, it's a disability. But even I can look at this and go, well that just doesn't, isn't going to work. You can't double the number of people, maybe

5:08triple the number of people on that program, taking all money out of the same pot without expanding the pot. This is going to cost me more money, not happy. She said, even if we doubled the amount of childcare funding for CCDF that would not be enough to serve all the families who need childcare. Now, supporters of the proposal argue that stay at home parents should receive comparable support to that to families that you subsidize, childcare services. I'm sorry, no one told you you had to have children. I'm glad you want to have children. That's awesome. But if you don't make enough money to have three kids, then you don't have three kids. I don't think the government should be paying you to make that dream come true. I just don't. You know, I don't like this idea of using tax and our money to incentivize behavior. Instead of incentivizing it, maybe we

6:10should make making the wrong decision painful. Maybe that's what should hurt. Instead of the other and people of the children, I'm like, look, there's going to be one generation that's going to have to go through something really hard. They're going to have to go through something really hard and learn a really hard lesson for this society to write itself and come out on the other side and say, huh, having children with several different men and not without the benefit of marriage wasn't a really good idea. And that's just going to wait. It's have to be. You can disagree with me. It's 777-377-43-73 or tag me and post on Exit Mary Walter Radio. Yidsoc did he said, think about two parents in the home, the amount of daycare money, trouble and raising the little thugs would be reduced greatly. No issue with that. Yeah, I just don't know if I should be paying for it. I pay for everything. Plus, they get $3,000 for each little urchin they have, right? In their tax credits. And they probably get tax reimbursements on taxes that aren't even paid. What do I get? I get

7:13nothing. I get nothing. I live in the people's socialist Republic of New Jersey. And I love it here. I love this place. My, my, this is when my grandparents came to America, they settled in New Jersey. When my great grandparents on my mother's side came to America, they settled in New Jersey. We, I love this state. I think it's a fantastic state. However, my property taxes are you ready because if you don't live in New Jersey, you're this will blow you away. My property taxes are $20,000 a year. And I live in 150 year old home that is nice lot of work. It's a constant. It's like owning a boat. It's just a hole that I put money into. $20,000 a year. Why? Why? Should I say yes? Tax me some more. I don't get. All right. So, and I have some opinions from other people coming up here to share with you. 877-377-4373. Let's head to Maryland.

8:14Al, welcome. You are on the Jesse Kelly show. How you doing? Mary, it is so good. I'm doing great. It's so good to hear your voice. I listen to you for some years. I won't mention the station out of a station in DC. And you, I, I loved every minute of all your shows. You were fabulous. And then one day you worked there and I've been mourning ever since. I'm just glad to hear you on the air. Where can I catch you regularly? Because I intend to do it. Okay. Well, actually, I will be on Newsmax TV tomorrow morning at 7.05 AM Eastern time. I am all over Newsmax. All right. And I do fill in on radio stations all over the country. And I have a podcast on Tuesday evenings, not tonight, because it starts at 7.15 Eastern time. So that would be right now. So it won't be tonight, but it is live on YouTube and rumble and get her. And I have all sorts of guests that are political, not political names. You will know Al. And, and then the audio is available on Apple Podcast Spotify and Speaker Easiest Way.

9:17Follow me on Facebook at Mary Walter Radio or follow me on Exit Mary Walter Radio. And I always put up notices about where I'm going to be and when. That's fabulous. And by the way, nobody, you didn't pay me to make this call. This was not a big call. No, it's not. It really truly is not. But thank you so much. Now that's so sweet. I appreciate it. You you're fantastic. I love hearing your voice again. And, and, you know, and on a substantive, you know, on a substantive point, your discussions about the sort of built-in dependence in dependence, not independence, the built-in dependency that we have created in this in this country. Of course, it goes way back. As you know, you've alluded to that. And I was in when I was in law school in the Stone Age, is graduated in 1975 from law school. And one of the courses I took was called Social Justice Law. And even then they were, you know,

10:17stupid. And I took it. It was actually a really interesting course. And I remember debating in in class the efficacy of the Civil Rights Act. And the remember the shoes under the bed law, you know, if there was a man. Right, right, right. Yes. You know, you, you, you, they couldn't get, they couldn't get what. So that what happened then is marriages fell apart. Men didn't marry the women that they impregnated. Yes. And the thing has gotten a hundred times worse than it that it was before. And we've ended up with the same poverty rates that we had before the Civil Rights Act. So, maybe worse. And you've always, you know, you've had a beam on that. And I heard you talking about it just five minutes ago. You were dead right. We, you know, I'm 76 years old, been around a long time. And watched this happen, you know, both professionally and personally. And I'll leave you with this one last thing because I don't think all hope is lost. Okay. I was with my son

11:17earlier today talking about exactly this kind of stuff. And my son is 35. He went to college, but after two years, he said, this is stupid. I'm not learning anything that's going to get me a job. So he now has a, a, a good job with, um, he's got a public sector job with, um, one of the beach towns. So I'm there. Well, again, I won't mention the town. Um, and he said, you know, quickly, I got this job because this, this, this, it's a real job. And if, you know, it's, I didn't go to college, get a degree for four years and then drive a truck. I got a real job because I learned some skills. And he's appalled at what he sees from his generation. He's 35. And he, he doesn't understand. He even said, why, why do they, why are they socialist Democrats? And I, I went into a long rant that I'll spare you with. But yeah, we got to run anyway. All right, don't need to be rude to you. You're so sweet. But thank you so much for your call. And thank you. It was very kind of you. All right. We've got more calls coming up. You're listening to the Jesse Kelly show. Every choice. It's America after all. But because some public policy has

12:21disincentivized marriage and birth, at least 13 disincentives and some of our safety net programs for those two things, you eliminate those and then maybe use some of that money to do the opposite to incentivize marriage and birth. And then you're saying, this is still America. You make your choice. And I believe that there are enough Americans who want to do this. If you look at public opinion surveys that will benefit from these policies, my guess is that you'll get a much more receptive audience amongst Republicans than you will amongst Democrats. That's correct. I don't need to malign anybody here. Sure. That's the way the cookie crumbles at this moment. It seems like now. That's right. My friend Tim Carney who works in Washington, DC, great social science scholar talks about places with high social capital. There are some places like Bethesda, Maryland that are predominantly left of center where you actually have very high marriage and birth rates. But those to your points, Stewart, are few and far between. Ultimately, that would be great, right? Because we get to the middle part of this century and conservatively minded people are having more kids. I like the effect on public policy from that. That was Kevin Roberts. He is the president

13:25of Heritage Foundation and he was on with Stewart. Varnie, they're talking about he likes this. He thinks this is great and incentivizes marriage and having babies. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I'm a big fan of marriage. I've been married for a really long time. Love you, honey. I've been married for a really long time. So it's fine. That's okay. I just have a problem with with government picking winners and losers. I'm going to let, I cut fit 16 here. I'm going to let Lawrence Jones on Fox News kind of say my piece for me here. Here's Lawrence Jones. Definitely a political winner. I see what the president is doing. I think it's a terrible idea. The socialism. Just give me the money. Just give me more of my money. I don't want you want you want just a tax like a like a lower taxes. Just lower my taxes. I don't want all these programs. Again, I understand that this is a political winner in this new age of populism. But the government

14:28consistently choosing who they are going to give these tax benefits instead of just giving us the money. And if you want that money to pay for lower child care, then you can use that money for that. But for example, I would not fall in this category. I'm definitely going to pay for it. But I wouldn't fall in this category at this point in my life. You're paying for that part of money anyway. And so what this is saying, no, but you're paying, no, I'm talking about the money set aside to pay for child care is going right now to daycare centers and to women who are unmarried. And it incentivizes people not to get married in order to get this money. And now this says no. If you're an at-home mom, you're working to and you're going to get a piece of that of that money too. I think it's really a sense a powerful philosophical message that one, we want to encourage marriage because that's good for kids. And we want to encourage kids to be home with their parents,

15:28home with their moms, which is also great for society. In principle, yes. I thought you said you want to libertarian any more. It's not even about being a libertarian. It's just a basic conservative philosophy. It's like, instead of the government choosing what money and what you should do, just give me my money. And not decide which different sectors they want to support. Yeah, just give me my money. I'm a big fan of just saying this is how much you're going to pay in taxes. Like we need to revamp the tax code period, right? And I know President Trump wanted to do that. It's not going to happen because tax accountants and too many lobbyists, it's just never going to happen. The tax code being ridiculously complicated is the way they want it. And also, politicians can't buy votes with your money if you know, you know, know exactly how much you're supposed to pay if everybody's treated the same. They use your money

16:31to buy votes from specific groups. And some groups are more favored than others. If you are married and don't have kids and work really hard, you are screwed. You're not getting anything. You're just going to keep paying and paying and paying and for Rachel there to sit there, Rachel Campbell, stuffy, you heard her there to sit there and say that, but it's all coming out of the same pot. The pot of money is already there. That's such that's so disingenuous because there's going to be far more people than there is money and everybody's going to be getting the dollar. It's not going to pay for health because it's not going to help with childcare. It's going to become a joke. And then what are they going to have to do? They're going to have to appropriate more money and it's just going to grow and grow and grow and grow and grow like every other government program grows and grows and grows and grows and grows. All right, coming up to talk about this, Steve Moore will be joining us. See Kelly Show. I'm Mary Walters sitting in for Jesse. Tomorrow Kelly Nash is in and then Jesse is back. All right, joining us now, Steve and Moore, what a great guy. He's the co-founder of the committee to unleash prosperity. He's the host of

17:34more money, get it, more money. He is a writer for the Wall Street Journal and a founder of the club for growth. Also the author of Trump Economic Miracle. Steven, thank you so much for joining. We great to have you. Thank you. Hey, Mary. It's so great to hear your voice. Great to be with you. Thanks for having me. All right, so I want you to unravel this for us. So the stay-at-home parent child subsidy proposal coming out of the White House will reward people for being married, having one spouse working at least 35 hours a week, having the other spouse stay at home to care for the children and they have to meet income requirements, which vary by state. Now, me personally, I just see another leering center here. We're going to have 10,000, just like we had 10,000 Medicare offices. We're going to have 10,000 people who are quote unquote married and they'll be no no, no, no, they'll be no checking to see if they're married. They'll be like your voting status. Feel free to register. No one's going to check. They say that it's $9,000. That's what it is now, but once you add all these married people into this, everybody's going to be getting two bucks.

18:37So I don't see how this works without increasing the amount of money in this pot and then it just grows and grows and grows and grows. What is your take on this? Well, it's a top point for me. I mean, I think I was listening intently to what you were saying because I'm still trying to make my mind on it. It's complicated because we give all these subsidies for daycare and for two parent families that have a, when you give a daycare, childcare subsidy or rewarding mothers for working in bed way. I don't want to sound like a sexist. I'm not against mothers for a thing and I'm not against mothers not taking care of their kids. It's up to the woman. But I do worry that this is the sort of nanny state and the government is stepping in and kind of putting their thumb on the scale about whether women work or stay at home. We're also running a massive $2 trillion dollar. Your deficit is not like we have money to throw out. So I'm kind of on the fence on this one. What about you?

19:40I don't like it. I just don't like the fact that there's so much fraud in all of our programs that if we got rid of the fraud, people would have more money in their pockets to begin with, right? I don't like just growing another program. I don't like it. I don't like politicians using money to buy my vote. I just, like you said, it's a nanny state instead of trying to incentivize people to get married. How about we disincentivize having children without two people in the home, right? How about we disincentivize behavior instead of incentivizing behavior that the government wants us to have? I don't think there's anything wrong with incentivizing marriage and having children. I think that that's great. We need more tax payers because I'm not going to get Medicare or Social Security and I'm a little annoyed at that. So please start popping out babies to pay for it. But I think ultimately in the end, the whole tax system needs to be revamped and I know that's never going to happen. But the whole tax system needs to be revamped. Everybody has to

20:41have skin in the game. Give the money back to the people. Well, start charging us less to begin with so that hopefully it's a net sum game. And instead of, because they're going to have to increase the money on this, I don't like it. So no, I don't like it at all. Can you tell? Oh, we lost him. Ah, the end of an epic rant and we lose him. Ah, ah, timing's everything. Well, I'm in good company because Mark Levin put on X, he said, how the hell do Republicans and pseudo conservatives propose more government programs when a $40 trillion debt is hanging over us and future generations soon to be $50 trillion. Social Security is going broke in six short years. Medicare is going broke in seven short years. And we need to increase defense spending. Who do these Republicans and pseudo conservatives think is going to pay for all this? They act like they've come up with some kind of magical program for families. When in fact, they're contributing to what will be an unspeakable financial

21:41collapse on the head of every family in this country. Where are their priorities? Where is their focus? Socialism light is nothing new. Government spending is nothing new. More debt is nothing new. They go on and on about rhinos, but that's exactly what they are if not worse. And they think they've stumbled upon a new ideology. Let me put it in simple terms. You don't create new entitlement programs when existing entitlement programs are tanking and the debt threatens to crash the economic system in the not-too-distant future. How does any of this help working people the middle class families or anyone else? It's a great question. How does it help them? Chris Lashkin, a husband posted, if $9,000 is the thing that is going to let moms stay at home and for families to have more children, then make it a $9,000 tax credit. If you want them to have $9,000, then the government shouldn't take the $9,000 from them to start with. Exactly. Because they take it,

22:43they put it through all of the government hands and then it goes away and then you're giving back $9,000. Just let them keep it in a tax credit. Why not? All right, Steve is back. Steve, that was an epic rant and we lost you. I was really in my groove, so I'm a little disappointed that we lost you. I lost some cell coverage there, so don't worry about that. But, you know, this is a tough call. I don't like the government playing the role of intervening in families. Look, I'm off for my wife, stay at home to care of the kids. We were fortunate that we had the opportunity to do that. It's a financial sacrifice, right? If the mother stays at home. I get that. I just think that the government should stay out of these issues and it should be up to the family and the parents themselves. Yeah, I agree with that, but what about a tax credit instead of collecting the money from them, right? Yeah. Which they're not paying into it anyway. They're not.

23:44But just give them a tax credit because my money is paying for this obviously because I pay for everybody. I pay for everyone and it goes into the government. It passes through 10,000 hands and it's got to be processed and all those people have to be paid. So that $9,000 that they started out with to give them in actuality is like three and then you got to get the money from somewhere else to make up for it. So just give them tax credits. Why does it always have to be a checker as a deposit? Yeah, well, I don't even like tax credit. I mean, look, I'm a flat tax guy, Mary. Yes. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I'm 25 years. So I always believe, get a relic credits, all the deductions, all the loopholes, all the specials for this, you know, I have a one flat rate, 18% everybody pays it. And you've got a, but you've got one deduction and that's for your children. And so if you have four kids, you get, you know, whatever the number is, $7,000 deduction for a kid. Don't make it so complicated. I don't like, you know, using the tax code for social policy. But this is also tied to another issue that I find troubling as an economist and just

24:45an American, which is we have record low birth rates now for young women. And that is a problem. You know, we're going to be soon facing negative population growth. And this is a problem that is plagued Europe, China, Japan. Remember, people were worried about China over the population of the world. So I don't know. I would don't understand why it, you know, why they're, we're seeing lower marriage rates and lower birth rates. I think it's a problem for our society. It is, but you know, what this isn't going to fix that because it's cultural. It's not. Right. It's societal because it's a hundred percent. We decided to raise up little girls back in like the 80s, right? And we did that by pushing down little boys and telling them that it's toxic masculinity and all that stuff. And now we have more young ladies going to college, more young ladies graduating from college. And they don't want to marry someone who doesn't make as much money as they do because that part of the old culture still exists there, right? Right. Right. So they don't want to be part of that.

25:45And you have an entire generation of young men who are directionless. Yeah. They don't have jobs. They're sitting at home. They got nothing. And, and we kind of really failed them. So it's, you could throw as much money as you want for people to get married. It's, it's not going to change this dynamic. I don't think. Yeah. This is, you also hit your, your deal on the head on this one. I mean, there was just a piece in the Washington Times, which was very troubling about double, double the number of young males that are not working, that I'm not working and be not getting married. And if they're not working, they're not marriage-match, right? I mean, right. So this is a big problem. But here, I have a question for you, Mary. I've been waiting to do this interview. And so we had something in our hotline. You get our hotline in the morning, don't you? I do not. You haven't been married. I think I asked you the last time I talked to you. I want every one of your listeners to go to all. Onlyspotspirty.com. Sign up for the hotline. It's absolutely free. Mary, do this as soon as this shows over. Okay. Yeah. I'll sign you up. But we had an item today. It was a 2025

26:49poll. And it asked a thousand women, do you blame men for your problems? And here was so interesting about the subject, the outcome. Who do you think was more likely to think that men were the source of their problems? Republican women or Democrat women? I'm going to go Democrat with the under-credit crowd. I chewed a one. I chewed a one. I chewed a one. I chewed a one. Sixty-four percent of Democratic women say they blame men for their problems. Only 30 percent of Republican women do. That's an interesting statistic. Well, because I think there's also a study that was out. I have it somewhere here on my desk. I don't know where it is. But the under-30 women overwhelmingly don't just don't like men. They don't like men. They're men haters. They're men haters. Absolutely. And then they make videos sitting in their car. I've been by the way in some of my relatives. I see it. Yeah. And then they make videos sitting in their car crying because they can't find an alpha male. Right? I want someone who's going to, and I'm like, you're looking

27:53for a white rhino. It doesn't exist. You want someone who's going to stand in an abortion protest with you, but also drive a Ford F-150 and be the sole provider for you and pay all your bills. Like that animal doesn't exist. Yeah. Well, we also had an eye open our outline the other day about how you know which the hottest schools in the country are? In what region they are? South. Colleges. South. Yep. South. The Southeast. The Old Southeast conference. When I graduated from college, you know, those were like the safety schools. Now those are hurts. You know, Mississippi Vanderbilt, Tennessee, Florida, LSU, because, and one of my speculations is these schools are fun. You know, you weren't learning but you're fun. And you know what? The girl's stressed up as girls. Not men. Very true. That is very, very true. Steve, I'm Steve. Our villain over is not on there though. So that's all I'm going to say. You know, my thumb went to Villanova. I know that's why I said it. Yeah. Because I went to Villanova. We had an entire

28:54conversation about this. It's completely forgotten about that, but it was great school. He got a great education, met a lot of great people. He has friends for life from Villanova. Absolutely. We got to run. Thank you so much. My friend. I know they're yelling at me to get rid of it. So let you go unless you want to stay and you can stay over to the other side. And we can talk about we can talk about the jobs report, but that's up to you. I'll do it. I'm gonna talk to you. So hang on then. I hang on. I'm sorry. More coming up with Steve more on the Jesse Kelly show. I'm Mary Walter and for Jesse Kelly here. Our guest, Steven Moore, is the co-founder of the committee to unleash prosperity, the host of more money. I write her for the Wall Street Journal and co-founder of the club for growth. He also wrote the Trump Economic Miracle and go to unleash prosperity dot com. Sign up for the newsletter, which by the way, Mr. Moore, last time I spoke to you, you told me you were going to sign me up for it. So that's all. That's the text for your email. So I have that. You do have my email. I'll send it to you again.

29:55I just go, I'll just go sign up for it. No big deal. All right. So let's talk about jobs. You were kind enough to stay for another another statement. I love that. Thank you. So a Scott Besaint who by the way, can we run Scott Besaint for president? I am loved. I love this man. I'm kind of fan-girling a little bit over Scott Besaint. Because he just says it like it's so smart that he runs circles around people and they don't even know what happened to them, which is fantastic. Now he said that Americans are not paying enough attention to the acceleration of business formation in the US. And he said as part of Trump's pro-growth policies, and we know there's a lot of things that are in place to bring manufacturing back into this country and investments that are being made by foreign countries. However, that's not something people talk about at the dinner table. It's just not. So is that why people are so sour on the economy and President Trump has what negative 57% among Republicans on the economy? Is that why?

30:58So I mean, I think there are a couple. First of all, it's a strong economy. We have, it's not a great economy. It's a good economy. And because people are still angry about high prices, I am. I just paid 425 for gallon to fill up. So I don't like doing that. But we are by far, back far, the best economy in the world. So every other country in the world would trade place with the United States in a second. China, which, Japan, which, Europe, the UK, all Canada would, we are, I follow the best economy. We have the best businesses, the most productive. We've got the best stock market. I know the stock market is in the economy, but we have very profitable and productive businesses. We now have more job openings. Mary, then we have people looking for jobs. We know a bunch of young men who could fill those jobs. Exactly. So the problem has been four or five months ago. We had the situation in Iran. The oil price went way up. And when oil prices go up, everything else goes up in price. And so that's why people are angry, because of high gas prices, which leads to food prices, transportation,

32:02manufacturing. We got to get that oil price down. It will happen. I don't know when it went up a bit today. So that's the story of the economy. It is, I'm going to give it a B, not an A, but a B. So how do we get that message across to people, to the voters? I'm just pulling out my hair around that. You're as a communicator. You're the one who's supposed to tell us what the message is, because it is a strong, as much, by the way, four years ago, you know what the inflation rate was? Nine percent. Nine percent? Yeah. Now we're at three to half percent. People are unhappy. And look, we have to get inflation down below two percent. Fed of Newfet, Chairman, Kevin Worsh is fantastic. He's going to be a super star. He will bring the inflation rate down. But until it comes down, people are going to still be angry, because groceries are a lot. You know, I, well, before I came on the show, I did some grocery shopping for my wife and me and, you know, I kept, I just bought a few things with a hundred bucks. But I will say that groceries are still less than they were under Biden. Because eggs were five

33:07dollars, five dollars, it doesn't. But I think the American people have the retention of a three month old golden retriever puppy, puppy that just saw a ball, right? They're like, whoo-hoo-ball, off they go, right? They don't, they don't remember anything. So I think the only thing people really talk about is gas prices. No one goes into work and talks about the jobs report. Like, this just doesn't happen. Where you work, they do. But most normal people, that's just not how they talk. But they do talk about what you just talked about, which is the price of gas. Well, the other thing is, Mary, that you know this, because you've been in this game a long time. You could ask, we could have the Garden of Eden economy. And half the people would say they hate it. Why? Because they don't like Trump, right? That's the problem with these, you know, so you're starting with 50% of people against you no matter what happens. Now, even some Republicans are saying they're not happy with things. But there's a total divide in how Republicans look at the world today. And Democrats look at the world. And unless you're a Democrat socialist, you're in the wrong, you know, Democrats already used to be taking over by these people who believe

34:10that the problem is a great support for the United States on it. Of course. Steve, I don't mean to cut you off, but we got a run. We're up against the clock, my friend. Thank you so much for coming on. I really appreciate it. Tell your wonderful wife. I said hello. Don't go anywhere. We got more coming up on the Jesse Kelly show.