Here's the fundamental issue in the midterms, and I think we're going to make this argument to the American people. And the American people are obviously going to be the ones who make this decision. Is look, if you go back to the Biden administration, the average American lost about $3,000 in take-home pay during the four years that Democrats were in charge. In the first year of the Trump administration, they've gained, average Americans have gained about $1,200.
Now, there's kind of a good news, bad news dynamic there. If you're looking at it from the perspective of the last year, Americans have done better. If you're looking at it from the perspective of the Biden administration, we're still digging out of the hole the Democrats put us in.
So that was J.D. Vance with Martha McCallum yesterday, and Martha McCallum with us today. What was your impression? Yeah.
Well, you know, I I think that um A lot of what is happening right now is preview for the State of the Union address. I think the administration is very aware of the train that's coming down the tracks of the midterms. I think when you look at the numbers on the economy, I dug into Latino voters and young voters yesterday before our interview to kind of get a sense from how much they have drifted since 2024, because they were clearly the Potion for success in the 2024 election. And their disapproval numbers are between 50 and 60 percent on the economy and on immigration.
So that's the area of the most concern, I think, for the midterms for the GOP. But the numbers for the economy are worse than the numbers on immigration from both of those groups, Latinos and young voters. And really, that model stretches across all voter groups.
So you do have a lot of concern about the economy, but there's a lot of positive signs in the economy. And I think that's what the vice president was digging into yesterday. I think that there is improvement in wages. There's improvement in the inflation number. It's around 2.4% right now.
So these numbers are all heading in the right direction. And I think their argument: do you want to go back to where you were four years ago with those kinds of policies? Or do you want to sort of stick with the horse that you are riding right now and see if indeed things start to improve? And right. He's going to Georgia, he's going to be speaking about the economy.
But you know, I would point out. Hey, bananas are too high. Meat is extremely challenging. We're working on these areas, but look at the progress we made. But if you say everything's great on all counts, then people kind of that's white noise.
But if you say here's what I'm happy, this doesn't make me happy. This is what I'm going to be fixing, and this is the trade deal that's coming in, and this is the data center that's going to be hiring 1,200 jobs over the next six months. And he talked about the Japanese deal yesterday, how they're going to put $550 billion, and immediately they're going to start having factories here, I guess. But this is what was pointed out by a so-called nonpartisan foundation. Health insurance is up 41% in the last eight years.
Rent is up 50%. Home sale prices are up 80%.
So they say wages are up 38%, but childcare is up 40%.
So we have things going in the right direction. But if you go back to, like, excuse me, back to 2022, which is four years ago, things are really continuing to rise. That's when people say things are unaffordable. But I just want to parry it right back. I wish when I go to take my notes in the morning, what I like to say, this is what Republicans will do when I got a big list.
I don't have anything except billionaires and wealth taxes. For Democrats, I don't, you know, pay your fair share. We got to get billionaires, there's got to be tech some governor Newsome says you can't do that, we're going to lose everybody. But what is the Democratic plan? I don't know.
Let ICE defund ICE? I mean, well, I think that was glaringly obvious in Munich this week, not to get off topic from the economy. But I think that when asked, I think that the agenda that you saw AOC and Gretchen Whitmer and the others, Newsome on that list as well, go into Munich with was just like, oh, this is easy. We just show up, we just bash Trump all day long. And then when someone actually asks them a question about their own take on foreign policy, you know, AOC can't articulate anything beyond um, um, um about it.
And I think that speaks to the economic side of the equation as well. One area, you know, it's not a good thing that the average age for the first-time home buyer in America is 40.
Okay. We need to if we're going to be encouraging people to have families, to get married, to dig in on that part of life, which I think is a huge problem in this country. I think we need a lot more of that and a lot more optimism in that area. We have to make it possible for people to afford homes at a younger age. And I think that something there's real meat that could be put on the bones in terms of tax incentives that make it more attractive, that there's a reward for making that choice financially.
And I think that would be something that might be interesting if it came up at the State of the Union. I have not heard from anyone that I've spoken to that there's a specific plan for that other than, and Vance brought it up yesterday, well, you know, we're trying to get equity. Investors and hedge funds to stop buying up all the homes in America. That's like 10% of the issue out there in terms of inventory. There's a bigger issue at hand, and I think that some tax incentive or enticement, you know, you could maybe make your down payment with pre-tax dollars, something along those lines, is necessary.
I think that would get a lot of positive feedback. I know they're talking about the 401k being able to access that without penalties, but the downside is that is your retirement. Exactly. But the hope is that you're beginning your career and that you're going to make your real money down the line. I think that they did talk about a couple of things.
I did not know the advent. You probably did because of your business background. The reason why these major Corporations got involved in buying houses. It was like to help out the housing market after the collapse in 2008. All these houses were just empty.
So I always confused BlackRock. I think it's Blackstone. Blackstone said, All right, I'll help you out. And then they go, Wow, we're able to turn these around and make a profit, so we expanded them. But they were dragged into this.
That was almost a favor. I think it was initially, but I think what ends up happening is that it sucks the inventory down to such a dramatic extent that it drives prices up for everyone.
So although the entry might have been somewhat altruistic, I think that they realized that the kind of balanced risk on those portfolios was worth it and they were making money off of it. It's not unlike the mortgage situation that ended up blowing up in the early 2000s to make that kind of bet on housing. But I don't think that change, beneficial as it might be, is going to make a huge difference for average entry-level home buyers.
So when we look at the midterms right now, all of a sudden we catapulted. We're back in 28. We already see a separation because Sanders, Senator Sanders mentored AOC. They believe wealth tax, billionaires tax is fine. Gavin Newsom is not for that.
I haven't heard Shapiro, Governor Bashir weigh in on that, but I imagine Pete Butterjudge would be for that.
So there might be, it's going to be very interesting to see when they line up on the left. Is anyone going to really look at the back of the baseball cart and say, hey, Pete Buddha Judge? And I think it was political arraxios. You were a terrible Secretary of Transportation. You didn't even spend the money that you were given in the infrastructure bill.
It was basically built around you. Eight terminals built. You're supposed to build something like 800. And the fact is he was a no-show, never filled out his staff or spent the money. And then they're going to flip over Gavin Newsom's card.
And it's going to be awful. And you heard Barack Obama yesterday over the weekend say, I can't go to Los Angeles and see these 10 cities. Nobody wants to see that and say it's humanitarian to leave, just to paraphrase, to leave them out there.
Well, guess what? We got a socialist in New York who's pro-10 city.
So this is going to be a very interesting debate. It is. And, you know, but the issue is whether or not people will turn over that baseball card. And will they look at the actual record? I'm not sure.
I'm flipping that card. I hear you. You know, my fear is that we live in such a sort of quip, soundbite, click-bait society that, you know, people hear, oh, tax the rich. You know, ding, I like that guy. Because that's always been a very popular idea.
Although in New York, with what Mamdoni is doing right now, the rich could turn out to be people who make $120,000 a year. And if you live in New York City, I'm sorry, but that is not rich. That is just barely getting by. Yeah.
And yeah, you live in a very small apartment. Yep. And then you take home, so let's say $120,000 with all the taxes, you're probably lucky to take home $75,000. 75,000, right? And then you got to hop on a subway, you got to want to get lunch, you want to go shopping.
And now your taxes might go up by 9.5%. Yeah, I mean, and by the way, he should know that because that's roughly what you think he was making as a lawmaker in New York City. But I want you to hear a little bit. Oh, that's right. You know, those kids those immigrants from Uganda have trouble making ends meet.
Here is the Mondami talking about his choices, cut 35. We want to work with Albany to raise personal income taxes by 2% on the 33,000 New Yorkers earning more than $1 million a year. and to raise corporate taxes on the most profitable corporations. And we know that for far too long, New Yorkers have given far more to the state than what we have received in return. It is time to end the drain.
If we cannot follow this first path, we will be forced onto a much more damaging path of last resort. One where we have to use the only tools at the city's disposal. raising property taxes and raiding our reserves. If we cannot pursue the first path, The only option we have remaining is a second path.
So he's going to go into his Rainy Day fund and he's going to go into retirement funds in order to do that. Has he ever thought about cutting back some services? He hasn't even started getting the ripple effects of freezing rent, which now he might have the votes on the rent control situation here in New York to actually pass freezing rent. I think he's just so new still at the job that he feels like he doesn't have any choice but to muscle this thing and figure out how to. Cover the billions of dollars of spending that he ran on, free health care, all of these programs that he promised people he was going to be able to produce.
And when I interviewed him, we went through all of these numbers. This doesn't add up. Where are you going to get the money to do this? And oh, taxing 2%, you can't get it from there. Corporations, wealth tax, can't get it from there.
And he said at the time, well, there's other things we can do. And now we're learning what those other things are. Tap into the Rainy Day Fund. I mean, these are desperate measures that no responsible person would ever do with their own personal finances or would always try to avoid. He has never managed anything.
And basically, one of the biggest things on his resume was supporting a taxi strike.
So, this is a huge test for this. New mayor of New York City. Listen, being mayor is not It's not like being a senator, okay? You have to manage the city. You got to make the city run.
No, it's not politics, it's management. It's like more like being a governor than anything else. And believe me, New Yorkers will sit up and take notice when they see all of the things that are already happening. Eighteen homeless people died during the freeze. S City streets that are still covered in dirty snow, and the streets are narrowed.
It takes forever to get around. No one's picking up garbage. No one's picking up garbage. So these are like the most, and so many mayors prior to him have learned this lesson the hard way that it's obvious that nobody said to him, Look, here comes your first snowstorm. You got to get this right.
We're going to make sure that everyone is safe, that the streets are, you know, we want no one to be able to say that you can't handle this job. And he's tripping up on these things in a big way. And he's trying to make these promises come true. Gonna have a lot of problems with Kathy Hochul, who's also running. And now suddenly he's endorsed her when he.
Was reluctant to endorse her all along in his own campaign after she endorsed him. Why is she afraid of him? I think she was just sort of trying to fence straddle the whole thing. And, you know, none of them wanted to. Jeffries, none of them wanted to support him in that race until they actually got all the way down to the finish line.
And then the reluctant never did. No, that's true, Schumer did. Yeah, and he didn't show up at the inaugural either. But she's afraid of him. Yep.
And that's so interesting because remember last time, she won. I know this is a national show, but this rally maddox is ripples across the country because the whole socialist movement. And if he's successful here, believe me, there's a bunch of 30-year-olds who would love to bring socialism to your city. But. Remember, she says, I'm not doing the congestion pricing.
She runs and wins. And then the first thing she does is put it up. And we have the first ever congestion tolls in New York City. She said, I'm not going to raise taxes. If she beats Bruce Blakeman, then she will raise taxes.
And because look at her track record, because she stands for nothing. She doesn't even have control of her own legislature. And she's hated on Long Island. That's pretty clear. And upstate New York, he's vulnerable.
We'll see if Bruce Blakeman is the Nassau County executive. What's interesting now is I watched some local news coming to work because I'm from Long Island. And local news, ICE is going all over Nassau County. And because Bruce Blakeman said, go. You're welcome.
Right. Come on in.
So I don't know if that helps or hurts. I'm for it. I'm pro ICE. And when people say ICE has been ill trained in that, guys, Number one, the people that were in those shootings, the unfortunate shootings, they both had like 20 years experience. Those weren't inexperienced, change the training type approach.
What happens is if you have no outside help from cops, you have to control your own perimeter. And I don't doubt that after a while being screamed at every day. And being racked out in my hotel room. These guys were on edge.
So it all combined to be combustion. And how do you sleep at night? How do you look in the mirror? No, it was, that was horrific. All right, more with North McCow in just a moment.
Unless she storms out. I've had guests storm out in the break, or make up stories like, I gotta run, or phone calls that never happen. We'll see if that's the story. Can't wait. This is Ainslie Earhart.
Thank you for joining me for the 52-episode podcast series, The Life of Jesus. A listening experience that will provide hope, comfort, and understanding of the greatest story ever told. Listen and follow now at FoxNewsPodcasts.com or wherever you listen to podcasts.
Well, I think it'll be very interesting because Meta employees admitted in internal communications they referred to themselves as drug pushers. They compared their product to digital narcotics, and indeed that's what Instagram and similar social media platforms are.
So, getting them on the stand, I think this is the first time that parents are going to see real accountability for how these platforms have harmed their children. It's really important. And that's what we're talking about, a trial today in which Mark Zuckerberg is going to be there. And what's going on in that trial is really interesting because there were some entities that settled out of court. They wanted to avoid this, but Meta and YouTube went forward.
So here, Mark Zuckerberg will be front and center. He's not the best public speaker, Martha McCallum, but we know this is taking place in Los Angeles Superior Court. It was brought by a 20-year-old woman who identified in court papers as KGM, her name Kaylee, and her mother, and by the way, her mother's name is Kaylee, I should say, began using YouTube at age six, Instagram at age nine, and alleged she became compulsively addicted, spending 16 hours a day on the Meta-owned platform by age 16. The lawsuit claims the company's engineered addiction.
So it's up to. the the plaintiff to show intent. What do you think? I know it's impactful this trial because it's going to c cost a lot of money. You know, I think we're in the middle of a reckoning that has been coming for a very long time.
I think that, you know, we've been living in the wild, wild west of social media and You know, allowing kids to be on their phones 24-7. I think that. One of the things they have to show in this trial is that there is a correlation, a direct correlation between the outcome for these children and their use of social media. Difficult to do because it's a mental health issue. With the tobacco story, it was, you know, you could sort of show a diagnostic correlation between tobacco use and lung cancer, for example.
So they're going to have to kind of climb that difficult hill, I think, legally to show a direct correlation between the two things. They're going to be able to say, well, look at all these millions of kids who used it and didn't end up with these problems. The question is: were they aware of a diagnostic study that showed that there is a risk of mental health issues for children if they use these products? And was the company? Manipulating those users in order to addict them.
There's a lot of emails that they have, several emails, I should say, that show that the company was aware that the product was addictive.
So, all of this obviously is going to be the back and forth of this trial. It's going to be very interesting. I'm not a psychologist, but like, for example, people love American Idol. I'm addicted to that show. I love soap oppers.
I had to watch every day, I had to tape it. That's the goal of a media outlet, that's the goal of a candy bar, that's the goal of a restaurant. How do you disseminate that goal from social media? I want people to watch as long as possible so I get most from my advertising. I don't want anyone to kill themselves, jump off a bridge.
But when you don't control the content, that could happen. Yeah, I mean, the difference, I think, if you were arguing on the. On the plaintiff's side, is that watching a soap opera or watching American Idol isn't anyone reflecting on you day after day after day, not liking you, comments that are destructive, all of this very difficult stuff. I think, I honestly, I think parents have to be the main managers of this. More on this with Martha at 3 p.m.
Eastern.
