[00:00] Introduction: Welcome to Registry Matters, an independent production. Our opinions are our own, and we don’t take instructions from anyone else. We are thankful for the support of our patrons. You make what we do here possible. And always remember, F.Y.P.
[00:16] Andy: Recording live from FYP Studios East and West, transmitting across the internet. This is episode 395. I should almost say like 395 part A, part B, part C, because we have one in the queue that we’ve been trying to release. But anyway, this is episode 395 of Registry Matters. Larry, should I even ask you how your day’s been? No, we’ve got to get this show on the road. Please remember to show your support by hitting the like and subscribe button. Leave a five-star review in your favorite podcast app. Deanna, just remember Podcast Republic. It runs on iPhone and Android, and it’s a great app. You know, Deanna, you know who you are. It makes a difference for us. We truly appreciate your support. And also, Larry, I do not have any whiz-bang sounds. I don’t have any sounds of celebration, but I guess that probably isn’t the right one. But what did we hit this week? Well, we finally reached the milestone of 1,000 subscribers on YouTube. That’s pretty awesome. That’s a big milestone for us. Do you remember when we were trying to get to 100?
[01:19] Larry: I do, and I remember another podcast that’s on YouTube that was trying to get to 100. And last time I checked, they were at 43.
[01:30] Andy: They’re the long way off, but it took us a while. This is a slow-moving thing. We’re like the Titanic at speed, I suppose. So, what are we doing tonight?
[01:42] Larry: Well, we have a case from the Maryland Supreme Court. Is that the way they pronounce it in Maryland? Is it Co-op? I seriously doubt they say it that way in Maryland. Okay, well, then we have a case for the Maryland Supreme Court. And also, I heard through the grapevine that you wanted to discuss the election results. But I’m not sure we’ll have enough time, but we’ll see.
[02:02] Andy: If we do, we could discuss it in a very nonpartisan, non-celebratory stance. I would agree with that.
[02:13] Guest 1: Totally nonpartisan. Here’s a spicy one. Larry argues that some lawsuits, even winning ones, can hand victim advocacy groups the ammunition to write tougher laws. Strategy matters as much as the law. Registry matters is where that argument gets made out loud. At higher levels, patrons even get one-on-one time with Larry. Become a patron at patreon.com/slash/registrymatters.
[02:41] Andy: All right, well, then let us get going. You have this case from the Maryland Supreme Court that you want to gab about. It’s Hammond v. State. Now, I read all 47 pages while I was on my creeper, crawling around underneath my car looking for whatever is causing my car to stall. But I’m having any trouble finding any good news. Are you sure? Are you just wanting to spread some more doom and gloom as you do every other week?
[03:08] Larry: No, I wouldn’t say that. We’re in the news dissemination business, and this is news. So why wouldn’t we discuss it?
[03:17] Andy: Because if it bleeds, it leads. Isn’t that the motto of a news station? I’ve heard of that before, yes. I bet you if you went and found good news on Pearl Harbor Day, it would be distasteful. They didn’t promote anything about some panda bears having a joyous occasion.
[03:34] Larry: Probably not. I don’t remember what they were doing on Pearl Harbor Day, but I don’t remember if they did or didn’t.
[03:42] Andy: Well, this case concerns a conviction for failure to comply with PFR registration requirements. Mr. Hammond forgot. Really, we should emphasize forgot, right? He forgot about his required in-person reporting. As a Tier 1 PFR, Mr. Hammond was required to register in person every six months. But, oh my gosh, he forgot. Now, can I take a quick little detour, Larry? There’s this comedian. You probably have heard of him. His name is Steve Martin. Have you heard of Steve Martin?
[04:58] Larry: Never have heard of him.
[05:00] Andy: Okay. Well, the older audience will remember him. The younger ones, maybe not so much. But he has a comedy album, a record, and in there he says, do you know how you can have $1 million and pay no taxes? No, I don’t. It’s a two-step process. So first, get $1 million. The second step, when the tax collector comes and knocks on the door and he says, hey, you didn’t pay your taxes, you could just say, I forgot. Is that a defense?
[05:27] Larry: Not really. But that was his defense that he tried.
[05:32] Andy: At trial, Hammond testified that he forgot to register due to circumstances involving depression and the deaths of multiple family members. The state of Maryland contended that forgetting cannot serve as a valid defense to the charge of knowingly failing to register under CP subsection 11-721A. Now, how did that go? Well,
[05:55] Larry: the circuit court, or the trial court, as it would be known to most people, rejected Hammond’s defense and found that it was undisputed that Hammond knew he had to register and did not do so. The circuit court explained that there was a distinction between not knowing and forgetting, and that “I forgot doesn’t mean you didn’t know.” Now, I love that quote. “I forgot doesn’t mean you didn’t know.” It’s true. The circuit court found Hammond guilty of knowingly failing to register as a PFR and imposed a suspended sentence, with a period of probation. Now, listen, this is in the state of Maryland. Can you imagine a suspended sentence in some of these Bible-forgiving states where they give you second chances and all that kind of stuff? Can you imagine a probated sentence?
[06:41] Andy: I can’t even fathom. They would take you and string you up by your toes and hang you from a very tall tree. Well, so he appealed to the Court of Appeals. What happened? In
[06:53] Larry: In a reported opinion, meaning that it’s published, the Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed the circuit court’s judgment, and that was reported as Hammond v. State, 268 Maryland Reports, blah, blah, blah. You can find it in the show notes. The Appellate Court concluded that the evidence at trial established that Hammond was on notice of his duty to register and that he knowingly failed to register. The Appellate Court considered the definition of the word “knowingly,” its treatment by courts in other jurisdictions with similar statutes, and the purpose of Maryland’s SORA. The Appellate Court concluded that, one, prior notice of the obligation to register is sufficient to establish the knowledge required for conviction of knowingly failing to register. Imagine that. Receiving prior notice gives you notice. Who would have ever thought of anything that complicated? Two, the mens rea necessary for conviction of knowingly failing to register under that article is not negated by force. It is a matter of forgetting. And three, mitigation at sentencing can be appropriate relief where extenuating circumstances impede a person from fulfilling the obligation to register. The Appellate Court stated that to hold that “I forgot” is a complete defense for knowing failure to register would eviscerate the entire purpose of the registration statute.
[08:20] Andy: I got to tell you, Larry, this was like the most stressful thing of my life was to go register. And I set up, I don’t know, a dozen notifications all over the place that would not allow me to forget it. Weeks out, my phone’s going off. Days before, my phone’s going off. The day of, my phone’s going off. It would have been borderline impossible for me to quote-unquote forget. So, yep, it
[08:47] Larry: is very stressful. I’ve experienced the feeling.
[08:51] Andy: So, next, Hammond filed a petition of writ of cert. And it was granted. Now, what did he argue to the Supreme Court?
[09:01] Larry: Hammond contended that the word “knowingly” in Criminal Procedure Article 11-721 requires that a registrant’s knowledge of the duty to register be contemporaneous with the failure to register. He argued that where a person has forgotten the obligation to register, that requirement is not met. Now, you’ve got to give him credit. That is creative.
[09:23] Andy: Now, I’m guessing that the state didn’t really go along with that whole idea?
[09:28] Larry: no, they did not. The state argued that both the Circuit Court and the Appellate Court found the knowingly element of failure to register was satisfied because evidence demonstrates that a person had notice of the obligation to register and failed to do so. Seems kind of rational to me. The state asserted that even if this court were to conclude that forgetfulness can negate the mens rea necessary for conviction, the case should be remanded to the Circuit Court because the Circuit Court did not make a finding that Hamlin had generally forgotten to register. That is also a valid point. If the Circuit Court didn’t make that finding, you can’t make that finding on appeal. Remember, Appellate Courts don’t find facts. They’re found below. So that was a good argument by the state. Now, to me,
[10:19] Andy: those arguments do seem reasonable. And I’ve got to ask, what do you think? There is weird stuff happening with my button pusher thing. So there’s a laugh track there that I will try to fix. Wow. No,
[10:38] Larry: I do not think they are reasonable, nor did the Appellate Court. They stated, we hold that forgetting is not a valid defense to the charge of knowingly failing to register under the appropriate article. Generally, to establish a violation of the law, it’s not a valid defense. According to Criminal Procedure 1121A, the state need only prove that a person had notice of the duty to register and failed to do so. Such proof is sufficient to establish a person who fails to register and only failed to do so. Now,
[11:11] Andy: What about a person in a situation such as yours, in advanced age, who forgets due to memory loss?
[11:18] Larry: The Appellate Court addressed that. They stated that by requiring the failure to register to be known, the General Assembly did not intend to open the proverbial floodgates and excuse all sex offenders struggling with depression from their obligation to time and register, nor did the General Assembly intend to excuse anyone who merely says, “Oops, I forgot.” But there is a process we can get into a little bit later.
[11:45] Andy: Then, what about a person who has dementia or Alzheimer’s?
[11:49] Larry: Well, that would go hand in hand. The court dealt with that. They said, “We conclude, however, that evidence of an involuntarily induced medically diagnosed condition such as late-stage Alzheimer’s disease, late-stage dementia, or other medical conditions that result in memory or cognitive deficiencies that deprive an individual of the ability to act with knowledge, awareness, or consciousness over the individual’s obligations under MSORA may serve as a defense to the charge of knowingly failing to register. They recognized that in those situations, but merely forgetting because you don’t keep good records and stay in touch is like forgetting to go to work. Does that work when you tell your boss you forgot to go to work? Every time.”
[12:39] Andy: Well, Hammond testified that he was under stress at the time and he forgot. Don’t courts, seriously, have any kind of mercy for “I forgot because I was under stress”?
[12:51] Larry: Yes, but not unless it’s medically diagnosed. The courts stated that a condition that merely affects memory or makes it more difficult to remember is not sufficient. Ordinarily, such evidence of a medical condition would be subject to expert evidence to establish the condition and resulting memory deficit depriving the individual of the ability to act with the requisite knowledge, awareness, or consciousness. In addition, we conclude that a lack of notice of the obligation to register and uncontrollable external circumstances, such as being unexpectedly hospitalized, may serve as a defense. If you were truly in the right situation, it would work, and you have to raise it correctly. You’ve got to use the right defense. He didn’t do that.
[13:42] Andy: Now, you’ll forgive me because I’m a little bit confused. They ruled against him but said that it could be a defense. And then you claim that the courts are logical, which this sort of seems to throw a pie in that face. They are, and this is not
[13:57] Larry: inconsistent. Now, what
[14:07] Andy: the hell did you do that for? I wanted the audience to zero in on your response to the absurdity that we just heard from the court.
[14:16] Larry: Well, it was not absurd. It was very rational. Hammond could have raised a mental health defense. He did not. He chose to challenge the statute on constitutional grounds. He claimed that the statute should require that they prove knowing in every condition that they had to prove it all over again and giving notice wasn’t enough. He lost that challenge but he didn’t raise a mental disease or defect. He just said, “I forgot.”
[14:40] Andy: But I thought he did raise memory as a defense.
[14:44] Larry: Well, he did raise it but not correctly. He claimed that the statute was infirm because the state must prove on each failure to comply with registration that the failure was knowing. He attempted to establish a new burden that is not required under law. He could have raised a mental disease or diminished capacity correctly and brought in expert evidence. The state would have had an opportunity to cross-examine the experts and seek their own evaluation. They could have had a battle of experts. He didn’t do any of that.
[15:15] Andy: As usual, you are completely hopeless. Now, why would you say that? Because you defend the ridiculous and absurd and then you challenge me all throughout the week, saying the courts and the legal system are rational. I’m just sitting there thinking, sure they are.
[15:36] Larry: But it’s not ridiculous. The court noted, again, quote, in this case, Hammond did not contend that a medically diagnosed condition deprived him of the ability to know or be aware of his duty to register. He simply said, I forgot. The evidence did not come close to establishing that. Hammond did not introduce any evidence that he suffered from depression or any medical condition that would have deprived him of the knowledge, awareness, or consciousness of his duty to register. When asked what happened or why he did not register, he just testified, I forgot.
[16:09] Andy: You’re admitting, though, that Hammond testified that he was going through mental health problems with depression and that he had experienced deaths in the family. A family member’s funeral was held on the date that he was scheduled to register. Right.
[16:24] Larry: Well, he did assert that, but that’s not a diagnosed mental health condition. That’s just stress. And they dealt with it. They stayed in response. We agreed that those would indeed be upsetting events, but Hammond made no claim that he lacked the ability to know or be aware of the registration date. He didn’t put forth any medical evidence. You need evidence.
[16:48] Andy: In recent weeks, we’ve covered cases that have reduced bad precedent. Is this one of those things? Does this make bad case law for us?
[17:00] Larry: Not really, because the Maryland Supreme Court considered decisions from other states. I didn’t include them here because they did exhaustive research looking for similar situations. And this is a well-reasoned decision and it’s consistent with other jurisdictions. So I don’t think there’s any bad case law here. This was what I would have expected. In fact, I probably would have ruled the same way. If they couldn’t prove he had received notice, I would look at it differently. But it’s like I tell people who never have a duty to register: You haven’t been notified. They’re not going to lock you up if you do have a duty because you weren’t on notice of that duty. Like when they passed retroactive laws, if you were never found and they find you 20 years after the retroactive inclusion happened, all they’re going to do is notify you of a duty to register and lock you up if you don’t.
[17:55] Andy: All right, then. To you, closing that out, do you want to discuss anything else on that side before we talk about anything else?
[18:06] Larry: No, I think unless the audience has any questions, but if you’ve been served notice and you say you forgot, it’s not going to go well for you unless you put in more evidence than “I simply forgot.”
[18:20] Guest 2: Gotcha. New Jersey prosecutors skipped the required step before charging two people with failing to register and an appeals court noticed. Procedure, it turns out, matters. Registry Matters digs into the fine print so you don’t have to. Patrons get community access and you become part of the crew. Join us at patreon.com slash registry matters. Okay, well,
[18:52] Andy: I, how do you want to set this up? That there was obviously a significant midterm election. Certainly the results were pretty monumental, depending on which side of the aisle you would live on. It was pretty monumental.
[19:07] Larry: Looking back over my long life of right at 193 years now, I would say it was definitely monumental. I think we have to look back 30 plus years to come up with a seismic shift like this?
[19:21] Andy: Yeah, and there was a big one in 2010, which the president at the time used the term shellacking. And this is bigger than that shellacking.
[19:32] Larry: Yeah, it was beyond what I had predicted. I have very high, highly scientific and comprehensive evaluation models. And I had figured that the House would flip by three to five votes. Kind of like they’d have a margin similar to what the current margin of majority is, a very slim margin. And I had given the Senate very low odds of flipping. I thought it was going to be an extreme long shot. Well, we were wrong. I was wrong on both of those predictions. It was a huge flip in the House and a solid flip in the Senate.
[20:10] Andy: And I’ve been watching almost every day pretty much because I am just fascinated. People often ask, why should I vote? It’s just my one vote. Does it really even matter? And I’m watching what’s happening in Mississippi and Alaska. And I’m looking at the numbers. In Mississippi, Scott Colom has 467,930 votes, and the incumbent has 465,356 votes. So that is 2,600 votes. Not quite. 2,600 votes in the whole state are separating those two candidates. I am fascinated by how close they are.
[20:51] Larry: Well, they’ve been a lot closer. Actually, Colom is, or rather, the incumbent is widening the margin as they close in on the final count. But they were down to less than just a couple hundred votes at one point. I saw it like 100 and something votes separating the two.
[21:06] Andy: I did. That was earlier. And then also over in Alaska with the two top candidates, it’s 102,962 to 102,325. So that one is 637 votes. It’s so close.
[21:22] Larry: It is very close. And those two seats could add up and that would be, what, 56 seats if those two were captured by the Democrat Party.
[21:31] Andy: And so I just got to ask you, you are a politics wonk. But can you put your finger on what the shift was? Like what caused this? Is it ice? Is it tariffs? Do you have an idea of what you think really, really soured people to Team Red?
[21:52] Larry: I think if I had to make a guess, because that’s all it would be, a guess, I think that people always vote on economic issues. They see the economy as a challenge with the elevated rate of inflation they’re encountering and the major technological changes that are scaring people about how many jobs are going to be eliminated in very short order. And I think they have hope that the change will put the brakes on some of this scary stuff and maybe the inflation rate will return to the Federal Reserve target of 2% year over year. Right now, we’re almost double that. With the inflation rate, it’s gone back up again this year. We’ve gotten almost down to the target zone, and interest rates were supposed to go down. But then in February, there were military hostilities undertaken. And that really upset the global shipping and the economy. There’s so much that goes through the Strait of Hormuz that it’s been devastating.
[23:05] Andy: And to cover that just a little bit further, it is my understanding that even things like fertilizer, nitrogen goes through the Strait of Hormuz. Whether it impacts us directly or it just messes up the supply chain, that stuff not coming through the Strait would eventually impact us. It would impact our breadbasket area where all the farmers are to help them get that out on their crops.
[23:29] Larry: I think that there’s been, from what I hear out of the midsection of the country where farming is big, I think that a lot of the farmers are having second thoughts about whether this is in their best interest. And I don’t think that ICE played a really big role. The people that would be upset about the way ICE has been doing their job wouldn’t have voted Team Red anyway. I think it’s economics. If I had to put my finger on it, I think it’s the economics of the situation. People didn’t have the hope that all the promises that were made would come true. See, this administration has been over-promising and under-delivering. And if you stop and think about this, since we turned over the calendar to 2026, there was going to be, I forget how many different times there was going to be money for the state of Texas. And coming to the American people, which I’m not taking a position on that. We already are running a $2 trillion annual deficit. But he said, I’m going to give you a doge rebate of all the money we’re saving. Remember that? Maybe. I don’t know. That was so long ago. Yes, but that was going to be returned to the American people, all these vast savings. That didn’t happen. Then there was going to be a tariff rebate because of all these revenues we were collecting. And then, of course, the courts overturned them and they had to return the money. There’s no tariff rebate. And then there was a proclamation that if Team Red wins, we’re going to give every adult American citizen, I think it was adult, I don’t think it included children, but every adult, I think, was going to get a $5,000 check. So how is that not buying votes? Well, that’s what I was going to ask Team Red because I’m sure we have some in the audience. What would you have said if there had been a Team Blue in the White House, just out of respect for you, would you have been okay if on the eve of an election, if a candidate had said, I’m going to give every adult $5,000 that we don’t have? But, you know, the fiscally responsible people that claim that they worry about the budget deficit and all this, we didn’t hear a peep out of them. I think maybe, maybe Senator Paul might have said something negative about it, but everybody kept their mouth shut.
[25:56] Andy: Senator Paul as in Rand Paul?
[25:59] Larry: Yes.
[26:01] Andy: I know I have 10,000 questions for you. Going back to Alaska, do you understand how ranked choice voting works? To be able to explain it? I wish you could explain it so that I could understand it. I think I was trying to explain it to some people when I was out earlier today. I think if I understand right, and by golly, I could be wrong. But I think if you wrote Mickey Mouse in as your number one candidate to win, and obviously there’s only going to be a hundred votes in Alaska for Mickey Mouse, maybe there would be more. Once they filter through everything, then when they recycle everything back through and Mickey Mouse gets eliminated, your second choice would be the one that you are actually voting for. So if you were, I don’t even know the candidates’ names up there. But if you were voting for the incumbent Dan Sullivan, then that would have been who your, really your number one pick would have been after your Mickey Mouse candidate got eliminated. And they keep going through that. I don’t know how many you’re allowed to pick. And then eventually they end up at the final result. I’ve
[27:10] Larry: never been able to fully understand it. And what confuses me, in addition to what you’ve said, is how our ballot would be secret if they have to go through them, trying to figure it out. Who voted, who was voted for? So it doesn’t seem like you’d have a secret ballot anymore to me.
[27:25] Andy: I know. I think you could still submit your ballot anonymously. You just write your one, two, three candidates that you want. Let’s say it’s three: Mickey Mouse, the incumbent Dan Sullivan, and whoever else you voted for. You turn that in, and they go through the ballots. It doesn’t matter whose name is on the ballot; it’s about the names on the ballot as they cycle through. It’s supposed to help pick more moderate candidates and let others bubble to the top instead of it just being a two-party system.
[28:04] Larry: Well, I’ve worked with a gentleman who could explain it far better than I can. You remember Jerry? He could explain it inside out. And every time he tries to simplify it for me, I tell him I’m still confused.
[28:20] Andy: Yeah, I’m interested in whatever somebody can propose that would help get the ultra right and left wing out of the equation, because it’s obvious that we are only interested in my team winning so that your team loses, regardless of what that means.
[28:40] Larry: So, well, I’m actually fairly upbeat about this election, not because there was a dramatic shift, but because I actually like divided government. I think it yields a better result. It forces people to compromise and be reasonable. So now we’ve got a president who, by all assessments, is effectively a lame duck. There’s no way he can ever have a majority again during his remaining two years because there are no more elections. So that means if he wants to go out on a high note, he has to sit down and work with the opposition party. But it means the exact same thing for them. They have absolutely no chance of getting anything on their agenda through unless they work with the executive. So that means we will either be at a stalemate for two years and pointing fingers at the other side, or we’re going to roll up our sleeves and get down to work. There are some significant problems facing us, like social security solvency. That’s five to six years away by all professional estimates, and it needs to be dealt with, and the sooner the better. Well, I can’t think of a better opportunity than having a person like Donald Trump at the helm at this point because he could guide that process to get the best outcome possible because he doesn’t have anything to lose. He can do it. If a tax increase is necessary, and I believe it will be part of the solution, the withholding rate will have to go up. He can sign that. He has nothing to lose. What if we were in the first part of a Harris administration right now? If this was the first time we were in year three of a Harris administration, Harris wouldn’t have the same ability to sign a tax increase unless it was going to be targeted only to the wealthy, which won’t be enough to close the gap. So I think that we actually are positioned to do some nice things. Only time will tell if we will have a Clinton-Gingrich type of governance or not. But they worked fairly well together. Got a lot done. We balanced the budget, ran a surplus because again, they felt they suddenly believed in fiscal responsibility when there was a team blue in the White House. So they were willing to make tough cuts. That’s during the second term of Bill Clinton. And we got to a balanced budget and ran three surpluses in a row, which hasn’t been done since. So it can be good.
[31:31] Andy: And while I’m sure our listeners are about to start throwing stones at the radios to make us stop talking about politics, how do you close a $2 trillion deficit? And we have something like $40 trillion in debt. I mean, we don’t bring in that much money. We’re not going to pay that off in one year, but isn’t the only two levers that government has to either increase revenue or decrease spending? And we already tried to decrease our way out of it. Didn’t the carmaker guy say that he would get the $2 trillion?
[32:09] Larry: Yeah, it’s just ridiculous to think that we’re going to cut our way to a balanced budget. Because even though in fairness we were going to do a fiscal year-end adjustment, September 30th revenues are up slightly. They’re up 2% over the preceding fiscal year, and this is all under the current occupant of the White House. But spending increased at three times that rate. Wow. So, if you’ve got revenues going up at 2% and spending is going up at 6%, and this is what all the tax cuts remember, I’ve heard without the tax cuts spending would probably increase at an even larger level. But what’s going to be required is something that most Americans are not willing to think about. They don’t think about where we actually spend our money. They obsess over the little things that don’t really amount to anything. They get all uptight about foreign aid. If you Google foreign aid right now, you’ll find out it’s a very small part of our budget. They got all upset about SNAP benefits, which are a little over $100 billion. So if we eliminated SNAP altogether, assuming that it was all fraud, not a single person deserves food assistance. We haven’t saved any money that would close the $2 trillion shortfall. Where we spend our money is on entitlements that go to the middle class, and most middle-class people refuse to think of what they receive as an entitlement. This ought to run off a few listeners. They don’t like to think of what they receive as an entitlement. I hate to break it to you, but your Social Security benefit is an entitlement. You receive it because you’re entitled to it by virtue of your participation in the system. That’s one and a half trillion dollars of the nation’s budget. Then we have another huge entitlement called Medicare, which is also in a similar alignment with money. Another trillion dollars plus. Then we have another big one called Medicaid. And it has a huge amount of money. I don’t think it’s quite as large as those two big ones there. Then we have the National Defense infrastructure, which is right at just shy of a trillion dollars. And the current administration wanted to increase it by 50%. If we were to cut anything from the military, Saddam would come get us. So we can’t cut that. We can’t cut those middle-class entitlements. Because grandma would go off a cliff in a wheelchair and would never have another bite to eat. So the things that we need to look at is how to restrain the growth of entitlement spending. Now, I didn’t mention all the military retirement. There’s a huge amount of money goes out to military retirees for both retirement benefits and disability benefits. So, when we get right down to it, the budget only has about a quarter of it that’s considered discretionary, because also we have to pay the interest on that 40 trillion dollars, which is a huge number. Now, it’s over a trillion dollars. We got to pay that or we’re going to default. So folks get over it. We can’t cut our way to a balanced budget. These tax cuts that we were so proud to give ourselves, we’re going to have to take a second look at those and maybe we’re going to bring tax rates back up to where they were. Maybe prior, maybe back during the Obama administration, or maybe a little bit before that, because income taxes are at an all-time low. Since we’ve had income taxes, these are at historical low levels. I don’t know if it’s an all-time, but they’re historically low, the rate of taxation in this country. And so that’s where we’re facing. We cannot cut our way to a balanced budget. If we did, it would be so cataclysmically devastating. If we tried to cut two trillion dollars out of those entitlements, what do you think the population would do?
[36:14] Larry: They would probably riot. If we tried to cut that kind of money out of entitlement spending. And we can’t cut Saddam’s money. We can’t cut the military. That’s what I mean when I say Saddam’s money. We can’t cut that. We can’t cut the interest other than getting lower interest rates, which the president’s been pushing for. But unfortunately, his policies have not allowed the Fed to lower the interest rates because inflation is way above the target zone. So we’re in a mess. But having this divided government, I will guarantee you that the Democrats are not going to agree to a 50% increase in military spending. So that is off the table. But I can also guarantee you that it’s going to be tough to get the conservatives to agree to any revenue enhancement measures. So it kind of puts us in a difficult position, doesn’t it?
[37:05] Andy: If one side can’t move and the other side can’t move, then you have an immovable object meeting an unstoppable force. I can’t remember how that thing goes. Okay. We’ve probably covered that far enough. I apologize to any listeners that are about to unsubscribe. Please don’t unsubscribe.
[37:24] Larry: Oh, I
[37:25] Andy: get requests for this kind of discussion.
[37:27] Larry: Where do you hear all that from? I hear people saying we should talk about it more.
[37:32] Andy: Yeah, we get those requests, and we also get the opposite: “Can you guys stop talking about this?” Yes, we get that too. I heard an expression recently on a politics show that went something like, “You can’t please all of the people all of the time.” But this was even less optimistic. It was more like, “You can’t please most of the people most of the time.”
[37:54] Larry: I would tend to agree with that. But these are serious issues we need to address as a society. We have to figure out how to manage our spending before it becomes unsustainable. We’ve been wrong about the timing, but there will be a day when we can no longer put all our spending on the credit card. I don’t know when that day will come, but it will come at some point. The experts have been predicting it since we were at 16 trillion, and now we’re at 40 trillion.
[38:19] Andy: Maybe. Or we can inflate our way to having zero debt. We have done that in the past. All right. Well, we are going to head out. But I got a special request from our big friend, Big Mike, who asked or said that a person who is a volunteer at New Jersey State Prison is turning 90, one of your contemporaries, Larry, on Saturday, December 12th. Can I get a shout out for Fred from you and Larry? We are meeting around 12 p.m. for lunch that day. I’ll send pictures. So shout out to you, Fred. 90? Oh my God, that’s old.
[38:58] Larry: Not really. It’s only about half my age, but happy birthday, Fred. You’ll catch up with me if you keep doing what you’re doing.
[39:06] Andy: Absolutely. Well, any parting words? I’ll wait.
[39:13] Larry: For their subscription on YouTube to collapse after this. Yes,
[39:18] Andy: We’ll go down to half. Well, I do want to tell you real quick that Deanna said she remembers promises from Team Blue regarding student loan forgiveness. She wasn’t a fan of that either. Trump’s proposal was appalling. The only thing I want Congress to do is reduce the national debt and fix the Social Security cliff, but they refuse to do either. As a registered independent, I hate everybody. And then she closes with, “I love these discussions. Go, Larry, go.”
[39:46] Larry: Thank you, Deanna. They will fix Social Security. They have fixed it twice in the last 50 years. So they will fix it again. Most people are not in tune with the fact that it was in dire straits in 1977 and in 1983, and they fixed it. They’ll fix it again. Unfortunately, they wait till the last minute and that’s what they’re going to do. Yes.
[40:07] Andy: Well, very good, my friend. Head over to Registry Matters.co for show notes and links to FYP education and so forth. You can email us at registrymatterscast at gmail.com. You could leave us an old-fashioned voicemail message at 747-227-4477. And of course, the hundreds of people listening to us on discord right now. If you become a patron at patreon.com/registrymatters for as little as a dollar a month, you get the program as soon as I finish producing it, usually on Sunday morning, and you can hang out with us in the discord server and listen to us make the show you’ve been listening to. Also, course head over to FYP education.org/shop for merch including the famous Kabuki machine shirt. And without anything else, Larry, I hope you have a fabulous night and I will talk to you soon.
[41:00] Larry: All right. I’m going to head home now before Uber prices go off the charts.
[41:06] Andy: Good night, my friend. Take care. Night. Bye. Bye. Bye.