Okay, let's unpack this. Before we really dive
into the political and financial deep end of
our sources today, we just have to acknowledge
this amazing moment, just incredible stamina,
really. World Series game three. Tie the record,
right? Longest game ever by innings. Yeah, 18
innings, almost seven hours, finished at what?
Nearly 3 a .m. Toronto time. Unbelievable. And
get this, within that marathon game, Shohei Otani
reached base. Nine times. Nine times. Four hits,
five walks. I mean, that's something we haven't
seen in a postseason game since, like, 1900.
Wow. It really speaks to a system pushed way
past its normal limits but still capable of producing
these historic surprising moments. And that's
actually a perfect analogy, isn't it, for what
we're seeing in the sources you've pulled together?
Exactly. Just like that game, we're diving deep
today into political gridlock, some frankly dizzying
financial maneuvers, and the clock is ticking
really loudly on all fronts. So our mission here
is to give you a shortcut, basically. A way to
understand three huge complex stories. The pressure
points in this government shutdown, the surprising
ways the wealthy are using tax shields, and the
latest legal dramas playing out in D .C. It's
fascinating because all three areas really do
show systems being pushed maybe to their absolute
breaking point, whether it's time pressure, political
standoffs, or, you know, sheer financial ingenuity
finding loopholes. We're seeing a lot of 18 thinnings
right now. Yeah. Where one sudden move could
just end the game. Yeah. For better or worse.
Exactly. OK. Let's start with the most immediate
crisis then. The government shutdown clock. As
of tonight, we're entering week five. Fifth week.
That puts us just seven days away from tying
the all time record shutdown length, which was
35 days. Wow. OK, so what could actually break
this? Our sources point to maybe four key pressure
points. That's right. Let's start with the federal
workers themselves. The American Federation of
Government Employees, the AFGE, they represent
800 ,000 members. Dish number. Massive. And they've
called for Congress to reopen the government
immediately with what they're calling a clean,
continuing resolution. OK, hang on. For listeners
who might not follow all the legislative jargon,
what exactly does clean continuing resolution
mean here? What makes it clean? That's crucial.
Yeah. A clean CR basically just funds the government
at the levels it's already at. No policy changes,
no strings attached, none of what they call poison
pills. So it just keeps the lights on. Right.
It's like hitting reset. But the problem is you
have hardliners in the House who absolutely refuse
to pass anything clean. They want concessions.
They see this as their leverage point. Right.
Speaking of concessions, Senator Ron Johnson,
Republican from Wisconsin, he's proposed a kind
of deal. He has. The idea is pay all the federal
workers retroactively for the time they missed.
OK, that sounds good. But keep specific language
in the bill that affirms the president's right
to fire federal workers without cause. So is
that is that a plausible way out for Democrats?
Paychecks now, but giving up that civil service
protection? Well. Probably not immediately. Look,
the draw of getting paychecks flowing is obviously
powerful, very powerful. But Democrats see that
language about firing federal workers as essentially
a poison pill itself. Because it changes the
balance of power long term. Exactly. It hands
the executive branch this permanent tool to potentially
gut the civil service based on politics, not
performance. Even if they think courts might
overturn firings later, the risk is just seen
as too fundamental, too high just to solve a
short -term political jam. Now, let's talk military
pay. Big deadline coming up, right? Friday payday.
Yes, and the administration announced they covered
this next one with a, well, a highly controversial
donation. $130 million from Timothy Mellon, who's
a longtime political donor. Why, stop there.
Our sources are pretty clear this is, well, it's
against the rules, isn't it? Right. Violates
the Anti -Deficiency Act. Can you explain why
that's not just unusual, but actually illegal?
Yeah, it's really important. The Anti -Deficiency
Act basically says public money can only be spent
the way Congress specifically authorized it.
You can't just accept a huge private donation
to cover a core government function, like military
pay. It's an end run around Congress. It's a
direct end run around Congress's power of the
purse. And Honestly, it sets a potentially dangerous
precedent. Could future presidents just bypass
Congress entirely if they find rich donors? Yeah,
that's a worrying thought. And practically speaking,
that $130 million, it only works out to about
$100 per service member, right? Barely. It's
nowhere near covering a full paycheck. So it
feels less like a real solution and more like,
I don't know. political cover, to maybe hide
where the actual money is coming from. That's
certainly a question being asked. Now, a different
pressure point, one that's becoming very visible,
is air travel. Ah, the air traffic controllers.
Exactly. They're essential, so they have to work,
but they're not getting paid. And we're seeing
reports of them calling in sick at higher rates.
Is that a protest, or are they needing to make
money elsewhere, like driving Uber? Probably
a bit of both, frankly. Whatever the reason,
the effect is real. We've already seen temporary
ground stops or slowdowns at major hubs. LAX,
Chicago Air, Newark. And we're heading straight
for Thanksgiving. The heaviest travel days of
the year. If this ATC situation continues or
gets worse, we could be looking at massive flight
delays, cancellations, millions of travelers
affected. It's a collision course. OK, then there's
maybe the most Emotionally charged pressure point.
SNAP. Food stamps. Yeah. This Saturday, 42 million
people. Think about that. That's about one in
eight Americans. Yeah. They're set to lose their
benefits completely. And the administration stance
is that contingency funds can't cover it. The
Secretary of Agriculture says the contingency
funds aren't available for the regular monthly
cost, which is about $8 billion. Democrats urged
him to find a way, but the answer's been no.
That is just staggering leverage. Absolutely.
And you can bet if those benefits lapse, Democrats
will use that. They'll wield it like a political
hammer next election cycle. How so? Well, sources
say they're already planning ads. Picture this.
Hungry kids versus billionaires. That kind of
stark contrast. It's a profoundly effective political
message because it brings the consequences of
this gridlock right down to the kitchen table.
OK, we have to talk about the leadership situation
or maybe the lack of it. Speaker Mike Johnson.
He's offered several explain explanations for
why this shutdown is dragging on and they seem
Well, they seem to be shifting they have been
yes first He claimed it was a tactic, you know
to pressure the Senate even though the house
passed that well that sort of clean bill as you
called it earlier Okay, then what then the rationale
shifted he started saying GOP members were back
home having meaningful interactions with constituents
and they shouldn't be pulled away from that important
work, but then Here's where it gets, frankly,
a bit bizarre. Johnson's latest claim seems to
be blaming the shutdown on Zerhan Mamdani. The
New York City mayoral candidate. Yes. Suggesting
that far -left activists tied to him are somehow
forcing Democrats nationally to demand, I think
the term he used was Marxism. Wait, seriously.
We're actually analyzing a claim that a... city
council candidate in New York is responsible
for shutting down the entire federal government.
That is indeed the argument that's being floated
and discussed in some circles in Washington right
now. It's something. Wow. OK. Meanwhile, this
whole crisis is raising the stakes incredibly
high over in the Senate, isn't it? Exponentially.
You've got senators like Josh Hawley, Rick Scott,
Republicans now openly talking about going nuclear.
Meaning killing the legislative filibuster. Exactly.
And they're citing the SN Act pre -crisis, the
potential cutoff as the reason, the justification
for taking such a drastic step. Now, that is
a massive structural change to the Senate. If
they actually do it, if they kill the filibuster
just to end this shutdown, what's the long -term
price? Oh, the price is potentially enormous
for them because the next time Democrats control
the House, the Senate, and the White House, the
trifecta, guess what? No filibuster to stop them.
Precisely. They could pass huge legislation,
D .C. statehood, maybe changes to the Supreme
Court, major voting rights acts with just 51
votes, zero Republican input needed, because
the filibuster would already be gone and the
GOP would have been the ones to kill it. It really
is robbing Peter to pay Paul, isn't it? Textbook
definition. A short term win, potentially creating
a massive long term vulnerability. OK, let's
let's pivot dramatically here. We've seen Government
systems pushed to the brink by gridlock. Now
let's talk about a totally different kind of
game being played. This involves the ultra -rich,
new tax laws, and how they're shielding fortunes.
Right. This revolves almost entirely around something
called bonus depreciation. There's a new law,
well, a restoration, really, that brings back
the permanent 100 % write -off for certain business
assets in the first year you buy them. And that's
a big change from how it was working recently.
Huge change. Before this, that benefit was actually
shrinking each year. So for example, if you bought,
say, a $10 million private jet this year under
the old rules, you might have only gotten a $6
million deduction. Now, boom. Back to the full
$10 million deduction 100 % right away. And the
market noticed this, I take it. Instantly. Private
jet sales are reportedly way up maybe 30 % from
the previous year. Brokers are saying they're
seeing a huge uptick, especially from American
buyers rushing to get deals done before year
end to lock in that 100 % deduction. OK, so planes
make sense as a business asset. But what else
qualifies for this 100 % write -off? Our sources
mentioned some surprising things. Yeah, this
is where it gets really interesting. The law
applies to commercial assets that have a, quote,
short, useful life. So yes, planes, specialized
factory equipment, but also, surprisingly, structures
built mainly for specialized services, like gas
stations. Okay. And most notably, car washes.
Car washes? Seriously, that seems like a massive
loophole. How on earth does a car wash count
as a short -life asset for 100 % write -off?
Well, it's not the building itself, right? That's
just standard real estate depreciates normally
over decades. It's the equipment inside the car
wash. Ah, the machinery. Exactly. The super expensive,
specialized stuff. the tunnel systems, the sensors,
high -pressure water systems, all the complex
mechanics, that equipment qualifies for the immediate
100 % bonus depreciation. So it heavily incentivizes
building or buying car washes just for the tax
break. It seems that way. And we actually have
a perfect anecdote illustrating this from the
sources. An entrepreneur named Mark Johnson,
after selling his family business, his accountants
basically told him, hey, buy some car washes.
And he did? Yep. bought multiple ones in Colorado
and Alabama specifically to avoid paying millions
in taxes. He apparently called it a big game.
Wow. Just gaming the tax code. But this isn't
free for the country, right? With the estimated
cost. It's not cheap at all. The estimates suggest
this change could cost the IRS something like
$363 billion in lost revenue over the next 10
years. Billion would it be. Billion would it
be. And this raises, you know, bigger questions
about economic efficiency. Some experts argue
this policy is actually pretty inefficient. Why?
Because it distorts investment. Exactly. It pushes
people to pour money into assets like car washes
purely because of the tax break instead of maybe
investing in things society arguably needs more,
like, say, affordable housing. So we're actually
seeing real estate firms now building these things,
car washes, certain types of restaurants, factories
specifically, to sell them to wealthy buyers
who just want the tax break. That's what the
sources indicate. The market is responding directly
to the tax incentive. And the profile of the
buyer has changed, too. It's not just businesses
needing car washes. It's wealthy families, family
offices actively looking for these specific assets
just to offset their tax liability. Their primary
interest might not even be running a car wash
long term. OK, that's quite a distortion. Yeah.
Let's shift to our final section now. We've talked
about gridlock. We've talked about tax loopholes.
Now let's look at the limits and maybe the bending
of executive power, particularly in the legal
system and in controlling narratives. We had
two, let's just say, controversial pardons this
week that kind of got lost in the noise. They
really did, yeah. Information overload is real.
The first one went to former representative George
Santos. He'd been convicted of fraud. admitted
it, owed $400 ,000 in restitution. Trump's pardon
wiped out not just the conviction, but also the
requirement to pay back that money. And the justification
given. Well, it basically boiled down to two
things, according to sources. First, some what
about -ism, you know, comparing Santos's fraud
to claims about a Democratic senator. And second,
the simple statement that Santos always vote
Republican. OK. Yes. What was the second? Pardon,
you called it maybe even sleazier. Arguably,
yes. This went to Chengpeng Zhao, known as CZ.
He's the founder of Binance, the world's largest
cryptocurrency exchange. He got a pardon after
pleading guilty to money laundering charges and
serving, I think it was four months. OK, money
laundering is serious. What was the White House
spin on that pardon? The official line was basically
that CZ was a victim of the Biden administration's
supposed war on cryptocurrency and that it was
a victimless crime anyway. But is there more
to the story? Well, here's the context that sources
point out. CZ still owned a majority stake in
Binance. Binance runs an associated service called
PancakeSwap, and PancakeSwap's single largest
client. Reportedly, it's the Trump family's financial
entity, World Liberty Financial. So the pardon
cleans Cece's record. Cleans his record, removes
legal barriers that might have prevented him
from running financial ventures. It certainly
raises questions about potential future dealings,
especially involving Trump -affiliated cryptocurrencies.
Okay, moving from pardons to the president's
health. Yay! Recently, Trump revealed he had
an MRI and also took a cognitive test. He bragged
about getting perfect results. Yes, and he mentioned
specific questions he found difficult, like repeating
a string of numbers 2, 4, 8, 1, 5, I think it
was, or explaining what a banana and an orange
have in common. So what kind of test uses questions
like that? Those questions strongly suggest he
took what's called the Montreal Cognitive Assessment,
or MOCA. And here's the key thing. The MOCA isn't
an IQ test. It's not designed to measure high
intelligence. Oh, and what's it designed for?
It's explicitly designed as a screening tool
for cognitive impairment, dementia, things like
that. Getting a score of 26 out of 30, which
is generally considered passing, just means not
impaired. The questions he cited as difficult
are actually standard baseline screening prompts.
So the bragging about acing it is maybe missing
the point of the test. Pretty much. But the bigger
ambiguity here, the real question our sources
raise, is why these tests were done in the first
place. Right. Neither an MRI. nor a cognitive
screen like the MOCA is typically part of a routine
annual physical, let alone a second physical
within just six months. Exactly. Why were they
ordered? That remains the critical unanswered
question. OK, finally, let's look at where the
system might actually be pushing back, holding
the line against political pressure, specifically
on the Justice Department. Yeah, it's not all
one way pressure. We know the president has sought
indictments against political opponents and sometimes
succeeded. But one target, Senator Adam Schiff,
who the president has repeatedly attacked, seems
relatively safe from a potential mortgage fraud
charge the White House was reportedly pushing.
Why is Schiff safe when others weren't? Is there
a difference? There's a crucial jurisdictional
difference, according to our sources. The investigation
into Schiff falls under the actual U .S. attorney
for Maryland, Kelly Hayes. She's a career prosecutor,
not a political appointee in the same way. And
she's resisting the pressure. It appears so.
Hayes and her deputies are reportedly aware the
push is politically motivated and are insisting
on just calling balls and strikes, applying the
law neutrally. And here's the key procedural
point. The political appointee who wants the
indictment can't legally sign off on charges
in Maryland. Only the U .S. attorney for that
district can. Exactly. Jurisdiction matters.
Kelly Hayes holds the authority and she seems
to be using it to uphold the independence of
her office against that political pressure. Interesting.
OK, one last unusual item. This situation with
poll watchers in California. Right. The Department
of Justice announced plans to deploy federal
monitors, federal poll watchers, to California
for the upcoming election. And the state's reaction.
Immediate pushback. Governor Newsom and the state
attorney general instantly announced they would
deploy state observers specifically to watch
the federal monitors. So monitors watching monitors.
Pretty much. It sets up this strange, potentially
confrontational dynamic, but it also raises a
strategic question. Why would the DJ announce
its plan so far in advance? Yeah, kipping their
hand. Exactly. It gives the state ample time
to prepare and deploy this kind of countermeasure.
Tactically, it seems a bit clumsy. It makes you
wonder what the real goal was in announcing it
so early. OK, so wrapping this all up, we've
covered a lot. High stakes government gridlock
pushing toward record territory. powerful financial
incentives, basically warping investment decisions
towards things like car washes purely for tax
breaks. And these critical legal systems, sometimes
bending under intense political pressure, but
sometimes, as with U .S. Attorney Hayes, holding
firm. You know, we started this whole deep dive
talking about that record -long baseball game,
the 18 -inning one that ended suddenly with a
home run. It feels like the political system
right now is stuck deep in extra innings, whether
it's the shutdown, these tax games, the legal
fights. Something's gotta give. The only certainty
is that one of these pressure points is likely
going to break the current standoff, probably
abruptly. Yeah. So here's maybe a final thought
for you, the listener, to mull over as we close
out. We have the SNAP crisis, potentially affecting
42 million vulnerable Americans, forcing Congress
to stare hunger in the face. A massive human
cost. And then we have this bonus appreciation
loophole, mainly benefiting the ultra -rich,
but costing the entire nation's tax base an estimated
$363 billion. A massive financial distortion.
So in this environment of information overload,
political breakmanship Which of those two pressure
points do you think ultimately forces Congress
to act first? The immediate human suffering affecting
millions? Or the quiet financial distortion benefiting
a few but costing billions? Something worth considering?