Episode Transcript
[00:00:04] Speaker A: Getting back to our origin of we the People, tackling current issues, both political and legal, with common sense.
As we the People, we must bring common sense back to make our lives better.
Only on NOW Media tv.
[00:00:24] Speaker B: Tonight on we the People, the Epstein files are no longer whispers in the dark. They are detonating in broad daylight. We are witnessing the biggest drama of tabloid fervor ever.
We have high profile resignations, international shockwaves, political fallout, and a growing question that won't go away.
Was this just about one man or about a system designed to protect the powerful?
Good evening, I'm Alina Gonzalez Dockery. And tonight we begin the latest revelations surrounding the Epstein files and why the levy may finally be breaking.
So over the past several days, newly released material connected to the Epstein investigation has triggered a cascade of consequences.
The document disclosures long demanded by the public asserted, although probably more for political gainmanship than some, and I'm not saying all, but some in Congress wanting to provide distractions, have revealed additional names, communications and associations that are now leading to resignations, dismissals and renewed investigations both here and abroad.
And one very highly visible arrest in the UK among the most explosive developments, senior officials both in the United Kingdom, government law firms here in the United States and within our own former cabinet members stepping down, institutional reviews being launched, renewed scrutiny into international figures and mounting bipartisan pressure for transparency.
This isn't simply tabloids sensationalism anymore. I mean, if one were looking at this in the great year of the like National Enquirer or tmz, that's what you would imagine this is.
But it's now playing out in real time.
Now let me put a disclosure. Just because someone's name may have been mentioned in the $3.5 million or 3.5 million pages dump by the DOJ does not mean they are guilty of anything as Whoopi Goldberg herself. Whoopi on the View stating that her name appears in an email in the Epstein documents. She has asserted that just because her name is on there, she didn't do anything wrong. It should not lead to an automatic sensation of guilt.
Now the question would be, are they going to be providing that same respect that just because you're named in the files doesn't mean you are up to something or you did anything illegal to President Trump? That's another question.
But the reality is what's occurring is an institutional destabilization.
For years, Americans were told trust the process.
Investigators take time. There's nothing further to see here. Especially after the 2019 mysterious death suicide of Jeffrey Epstein himself.
But we the people, never stopped asking who knew what, who protected whom? And why did it take this long for the release of these documents?
This case has always been more about than Jeffrey Epstein. It has been about access, power, influence, and whether elite networks operate under a different set of rules than those that apply to us.
So let's be honest.
The Epstein story has surfaced before.
Names were mentioned, depositions were sealed, rumors circulated, and yet nothing truly shifted. Not in Congress, not in power positions.
Until now.
Which begs the question, so what is the difference?
So there are three things. First, volume, the scale of documentation now entering public view is far greater than ever before.
We had 3.5 million pages just released moment not too long ago.
Second, and I think this is probably the most crucial linchpin, bipartisan pressure. Yes, that means Democrats working with Republicans. Oh, my God. Maybe, maybe this is a great lesson for both sides to say, maybe we can work together for more things. But let's take a little bipartisan pressure.
So this is no longer confined to one political party weaponizing the issue against another. Members of both parties have supported disclosure.
And third, public exhaustion. We're just tired of watching powerful people, the elite, avoid consequences while everyday citizens face the full force of the law.
And that sentiment cuts across etiology. Whether someone is worried about inflation, border security, crime, taxes, education.
There is a shared undercurrent. If the system protects insiders, it is broken. If those that are supposed to be governing us, that are supposed to be leading this country through governance, are shielding those that have, who have dealt with providing secrets to individuals, covering up malicious, disgusting child trafficking and women trafficking and sex trade.
This is when the trust of the people erodes, which then weakens our democracy, this great nation.
The fallout is not confined to the United States.
International figures, including those previously scrutinized, are again under the microscope. As connections resurface, global elites move in tight circles. And when I say elite, I'm saying like major big players, billionaires, mega millionaires, very powerful politicians all fall into this. But again, it doesn't mean just because your name is listed in an email or something means that you did anything wrong. However, these are the circles that we are not privy to until now.
Finance, politics, royalty, academia, and philanthropy.
When one thread unravels, others are pulled with it.
This is why this story matters beyond the headlines. It's not about the sensationalism. It's not about, oh, we're gonna get Trump, or ha ha, look at these Hollywood elites that are named in it, like Kevin Spacey inside.
What we are witnessing with the disclosure of the Epstein files is the uncomfortable possibility that the elite accountability has long operated on a huge delay or worse, on discretion, that there is a different tier for those that have, that are indie circles, to those that don't.
And as the records are being viewed and, and read and discern, because remember, a lot of these are like even hotline tips that have been unfounded.
One thing is true too.
Trump is looking better and better because details are coming out. Yes, he's listed in it. Yes, he's been especially in the hotline things that he did something as of 2020, a lot of them came in. But it's also showing who was cooperating with police officers, who was actually willing to come forward.
So now we have to see where is the shift in tone from this.
Are we going from a scandal to a system that has been in place probably more so far, dating far back than Jeffrey Epstein?
So this is why I want to pivot.
Because if we only stay at the level of a scandal, which, yes, great for gossip, yes, great for clickbaiting and audience member views, but we're missing the larger issue.
The, the real question is not who was on a list.
The real question is what structures allowed this to flourish? How on earth did this man become so entrenched in this elite area, having access to some of the most powerful people in the world and some of the most rich people of the world, while also running this dubious underground trade?
How did a man with known allegations and a plea bargain, which was a sweetheart deal from Florida, maintains of, of prostituting minors maintain influence for years? How did that happen?
How did the institutions, the financial institutions, the political institutions, fail repeatedly from being bringing this to life? Is it because the people involved are the ones who are truly the puppet masters and they are the key to this?
And why does it often take public outrage and politicos that are now on, you know, using this as political fodder for their own reelections to force transparency?
Why is it that we had to witness the poor victims get out in on television to cry, to demand that these records get released?
Again, this is not about gossip. It's about governance. Is about whether the rule of law applies equally. And it's also whether entrenched power protects itself. And, and then how do we root it out?
And this is where it gets even more interesting. A bipartisan group in Congress, a Democrat and a Republican, helped push legislation that led to the release of these files.
One center described the effort as cleaning out the sewer.
Those are strong words, but perhaps reflective of growing belief in Washington that sunlight is no longer optional and it is necessary.
When we return, we'll break down who authored the disclosure push, what their true intent was, and whether this is the beginning of a generational reckoning inside the halls of power.
Stay with us. This is we the People.
Welcome back to we the People. Before the break, we asked the question, is this just another political scandal?
Is this going to be another scandal that gets swept under the rug going, okay, we gave you some tidbit and some fodder and some great gossip, but we're going to go back to the status quo. We'll let some heads roll as the sacrificial lambs, but the rest are protected.
Or is this the beginning of something much bigger?
Because behind the headlines about the Epstein files is a bipartisan legislative effort that floods force this disclosure into the light.
And that matters in the era where Congress has can barely agree on lunch, a Democrat and a Republican co authored legislation pushing for the broad disclosure of Epstein related materials.
That alone should make us pause and for some, like me, applaud.
This was not partisan theater, it was structural.
One of the leading voices behind the release effort described it bluntly, this is about cleaning out the sewer.
So we're not even talking about a swamp, we're talking about sewers.
That is strong language, but it speaks to growing sentiment inside Washington that the public's trust has eroded to a dangerous level. Look at the approval ratings of Congress alone. They are at the lowest of lows.
The argument wasn't about political advantage. It's about credibility, something that the congressional members need to look at whether they have credibility. Because I can tell you as a lawyer, when you are in trial and a judge finds that one party does not have credibility, that paints everything that they have in the light of lies, misrepresentations, even if they're telling the truth.
This is about restoring faith that no class of people operates above scrutiny.
And when members of opposing parties align on transparency, it signals something deeper than optics. It signals pressure, public pressure.
Now let's talk about the intent.
Why push for a large scale release knowing it would create chaos, reputational damage and institutional discomfort?
Because incremental transparency wasn't working.
Allowing a little crumbs here and there that that mockery of people getting a binder of the Epstein files, which was like an inch, was ludicrous and it was insulting.
For years, disclosures were selective. And let's remember, none of there was no disclosures in the last administration. They weren't going to allow it.
Redactions were heavy, records were sealed. The perception, fair or not, whether it was legitimately records were sealed by the courts on legitimate reason. Redactions were heavy because they were either unfounded tips or we were protecting the victims, which of course we should still do.
The perception still holds that the elite networks protect their own and that our government officials, those that are supposed to be upholding the law and the Constitution, were being bought off or in the back pockets of these elites and perception and governance becomes reality. Now what's interesting is, is one thing is you don't see major legal DOJ people on these lists.
That is the most interesting.
But you do see some major heavy players. Whether they did anything wrong or not, that's up to investigators and looking at it. But the sphere of influence that Epstein had is what really needs to be determined is, yes, vindication for the, for these poor young women and women that were victimized, but also looking at how far did his tendrils go into that sphere of influence in our government, in high finances and stocks, insider trading, I mean, all types of things. And again, it's not just America that's being affected. Look what's happening across the pond in the uk.
Look what's happening in Dubai.
I mean, there are some major heavy players resigning, stepping down because of the inference of being involved with Jeffrey Epstein.
And the co authors of the bill framed the release not as punishment but as sunlight, a reset, an acknowledgment that we the people no longer accept trust us as an answer.
And here's what's critical. This wasn't framed as left versus right.
It was framed as insiders versus everyone else. That distinction is powerful because voters across ideological lines increasingly feel shut out of decision making. While long serving power brokers rotate between government boards, law firms, lobbying forums and the media, the Epstein files became a flashpoint for the broader frustration.
Let's elevate this discussion.
This is not about assuming guilt by association because that is not fair and that is not what we are about here.
This is about asking why did the institutions fail to act sooner?
Remember, this started way back in 2008, 2009, when Jeffrey was first charged here in Florida and brought before charges. But he had a sweetheart, I mean a sweetheart deal, pleading no contest, getting a slap on the wrist, but also immunity from federal prosecution.
Why were warning signs ignored? Is it because of the influence of the people that were involved in this circle?
Why did wealth and proximity appear to shield access?
Whether someone is conservative, progressive, independent.
Most Americans agree on one principle. If you or I were implicated in wrongdoing, we would not be granted years of deference. Our reputations would be ruined. Our, our businesses, our homes, our families would all be wrecked.
But what has been glaring from all of this is when elites appear insulated, that they are insulated. The public concludes the system is rigged and the perception corrodes the legitimacy.
And legitimacy is currency of democracy because again, just because you are named, whether it's an email or yes, maybe because he was in that level of influence and running around with these big players, he is going to be dealing with some people at fundraisers and stuff.
But it begs the question, is the good old boy system alive and well in Washington, in national politics, finances, international relations?
Because that phrase keeps surfacing in conversations when we discuss the fallout in the reach of this Epstein files. The good old boy network.
An informal web of relationships, political, financial, social, where influence travels quietly.
Now, networks aren't inherently corrupt, relationships aren't illegal. But when networks override accountability, the line is crossed. The bipartisan sponsors of disclosure are tapping into something volatile. A belief that elite circles have operated too long without meaningful disruption. So these two congressional members that brought forward this, they are disruptors. Not do I agree with all of what they do?
No, absolutely not. But one thing's for sure I agree with we need to clean up the sewer, we need to drain it.
Isn't that why Trump was elected? Because those that followed him that are part of the MAGA movement or really Trump enthusiasts, was it because they wanted disruption?
And disruption is coming, whether institutions manage it responsibly or not.
That is what is remains to be seen.
But this does bring up the natural next question.
If the disclosure is step one, what is step two?
Because exposing names does not automatically fix systems, releasing files does not automatically restore trust.
If the problem is entrenched power, just a few resignations here and there, like the one of the lead attorneys of Goldman Sachs partner, the stepping down of the Prime Minister's right hand man of the United Kingdom.
The conversation must move toward the structural reform, like true reform.
And that's where the debates becomes even more consequential because we do have huge power players. I mean we have Bill Gates that's being thrown out there. We have, you know, Andrew Motenbaum of Windsor, formerly known as Prince Andrew, who just got arrested not because of diddling with, with high priced hookers, if you will, or 29 year old models from Russia or what have you, but because he was, he is now being investigated. He was charged with providing confidential information from the UK Government to Epstein, that's where we're starting to see where the issues are. How far did these tendrils go and how it benefited not only Epstein, but those in his inner circle.
Nobody is above the law. And I'm sure there's going to be people going, well, what about Trump? He was convicted. That's another issue that's under appeal. I'm not dealing with that. Dealt with that a while back, though. What we're talking about is a structural change. And also what begs the question that we have to do a huge shakeup of how our power is dealt with because far too many people stay in power for far too long.
And when you had that long of a power, it tends to corrupt.
So when we return after this break, we're going to explore whether this moment signals something even bigger. Is it time to rethink how long people stay in power? I mean, look, Biden was in power for 50 years. Nancy Pelosi, since the 1980s were like talking 40 plus years. We had one center from California that literally died in the seat and she had complete incapacitation.
So should term limits be back on the table? Should bureaucratic administrators face stricter 10 year boundaries? So you don't have an administrator in holding up major divisions of our government?
And is this the generational bell ringing inside Washington saying that it is time that we clean house and maybe allow younger generations to get in, such as Gen Xers, millennials?
Stay with us. This is we the People. Will be right back after this.
Welcome back. If you are enjoying this episode of we the People, you can download the Now Media app on iOS or Raku and not only watch this episode and past episodes of we the People, but but other great programs now offered by NOW Media.
And it is both in Spanish and English shows. If you're on the go grab the podcast version on NOW Media tv.
So back to our program tonight. We've walked through the latest Epstein file disclosures. We've examined the bipartisan effort to bring those documents into public view.
Now we are confronting the larger question at this moment is about accountability.
What does real reform look like?
Because exposure without structural change is just spectacle.
So let's speak plainly because that's how we are here.
Americans across party lines increasingly believe that too many people in Washington stay way too long. And we've seen it.
We still see it. Hello, Nancy Pelosi. She's finally retiring. Now she's not seeking reelection after what, 40 plus years we had Joe Biden, which my heart goes out to him and his family as we witness his incapacitation growing.
And I'm not stating that experience is bad, obviously, having someone with experience and knowledge is always, always a benefit.
But because permanence breeds insulation, it breeds the opportunity for corruption and complacency, which is the worst of them all.
Because when lawmakers serve for decades upon decades, when committee chairs rotate among the small circle, when senior bureaucrats remain embedded across administrations, and we have some that cross four administrations, the result can be stagnation and sometimes protectionism.
The Epstein fallet has ignited a deeper sentiment.
Has power calcified in this country?
And if so, how do we re responsibly loosen that calcification? How do we change this so that you and I, we the people of the United States of America, have a government that is for us, by us, that is in service to us, because remember, we're supposed to be the bosses, not them in the Hill.
So let's talk about term limits.
Term limits are not new. If you recall, I think it was a few years ago, I met with someone that has been trying to push this movement to get the states to change the Constitution, to have a Constitutional Convention so we can implement term limits.
In fact, term limits are consistently polling well, well across political affiliations. And why would you think that is?
Because they represent renewal, they represent circulation of leadership. And if done correctly, you still have the knowledge and the experience that can transform, but also it allows for new blood, new thinking.
And sometimes you're not going to agree with that new thinking, but it does allow that evolution. Because remember, just like our Constitution is a living document and our country continues to evolve, we the people continue to evolve. Our, our government is supposed to as well.
And it shouldn't be about getting elected and only worrying about your next reelection and staying in power, refusing to act on behalf of we the people.
We need circulation of leadership, both elected as well as bureaucratic.
So the public service is a season, it's never been meant to be a lifetime. Entitlement critics argue that term limits weaken institutional knowledge, then that they empower unelected staff, that they create constant turnover.
And those are legitimate concerns because if you do too short of a term limit, it could potentially have that. But then let's remember our presidents have an eight year term limit.
Two terms, that's it.
But then let's look at the counterpoint. What weakens institutions more? Turnover or public distrust?
Because when the citizens begin to believe that political careers are insulated from consequence and they are potentially being manipulated by those that had the power and the money and influence like Jeffrey Epstein had.
Confidence erodes and confidence is foundational, especially for something like what we have here in the United States.
So beyond elected officials lies another layer of governance. Career administrators, agency heads, regulatory officials.
Many serve honorably for decades.
But the Epstein revelations have reopened this question.
What oversight mechanisms exist for entrenched bureaucratic power?
Is there sufficient rotation?
Is there sufficient overview?
Is the transparency and internal investigations?
And are the so called nonpartisan watchdog systems truly independent?
This isn't about vilifying civil servants because I'm going to tell you right now, there are many, many in the bureaucratic system that are doing what they believe is for the best of this country.
But it is about asking whether longevity, longevity without accountability becomes vulnerability to such corruption as we are now starting to see.
And in moments like this, we the people, demand answers. And we are deserving of those answers because again, this is a government bureaucratic and elected for the people, by the people.
There is also a generational undertone to all of this.
You hear it in the language used by reform advocates. We need fresh leadership, we need new blood. We need to break the cycle.
When a Democratic senator speaks out cleaning out the sewer and Republican members agree on transparency, that signals something deeper than scandal.
It signals recognition that institutional trust is fragile.
Younger voters, and frankly many older ones, are less patient with opaque governance.
They expect disclosure.
They expect consequences for their actions or non actions.
Not voting on something, abstaining, not showing up.
They expect mobility within leadership.
And if institutions don't solve correct, they risk being disrupted by populous ways on either side of the aisle.
So now let's ground this.
Reform must be thoughtful. It can't be half ass or can't be a knee jerk. It has to have intent. It has to have proper basis. It has to have measurable outcomes on how we are going to reform the system and how we're going to put in watchdogs. And maybe we need watchdogs over the watchdogs to ensure that there is this accountability, but yet to prevent, have preventative structures so that one man or one sphere of influence or class can manipulate, influence, control what happens to the rest of the population.
We cannot govern from outrage.
And aren't we kind of sick and tired of the, of all of this outrage, this performative politics that we have been experiencing now for, well since Trump entered into the limelight of 2015. Aren't we just tired of it? Don't we deserve to have a government that actually is doing the job that they are elected to do, not just out there perform I mean, my God, I mean, I'm still trying to figure out why the heck there are governors and certain congressional members and AOC running off to Munich, badmouthing our country, badmouthing our president and then acting like fools and looking ridiculous and uneducated. That is not a good look.
We cannot design policy on performative politics or solely on scandal.
But moments of exposure such as this are catalysts to the change that we need.
We are seeing the water seeping through the cracks and these Epstein files have widened one and the question is not whether reform is necessary. The question is whether leaders will shape it or whether frustration will shape it for them.
Is this the time for we the people to stand up with our votes, with our voices and demand reform?
Because there is going to be more and maybe it's great that they dumped out. I don't necessarily agree dumping out like unfounded tip things because I don't want people just because their names pop up on someone saying oh so and so New Epstein or what have you, that their reputations be tarnished or that they are associated, you know, guilt by association. Because that is not fair and that is not what we are about.
But what we do deserve and what we should be ultimately demanding and demanding on a daily basis is that reform occur. That we have systems put into place to protect us from possible, not only scandal, but illegitimate government action being taken for the benefit of a few at the, at the price of the. Of the lesser class.
So tonight, as viewers watch resignations unfold and names circulate, I want to ask something bigger than who was involved? Whose names are there? I mean, yes, it's all great and fun to gossip about, but what kind of government do we want?
One that reacts only when exposed?
Or one that builds in safeguards before crises?
One that will be building the levees and building the structures that are protection, protecting us, we the people, in our government, in our nation.
Is it. The levy has broken. We must decide what we rebuild behind it.
And speaking of governance under pressure, when we return, we turn to New York City where policy decisions, budgets and political ideology are raising urgent questions about fiscal responsibility, executive power.
A little arm twisting if you will.
So stay with us. This is we the People foreign.
Welcome back to we the People. Tonight we've expand, we've examined accountability in Washington.
Now we're turning to New York City, the Big Apple, where fiscal policy, political leverage, executive power are colliding in a high stakes showdown between City hall in Mandami, in Albany, New York and Governor Hochul. Because this is no longer just about ideology, it's about math.
And I'm telling you right now is a little scary, people.
Mayor Zoram Andami has introduced a budget vision that expands government spending commitments at a time when revenue projections are already under strain.
The shortfall significant.
Now they were projecting a 12 billion dollar shortfall, but hey, good news, it's now down to I think to half of that 36 billion.
Still significant.
And here's the key. The mayor does not have unilateral authority to raise state income taxes, which that was what he, he, he ran on. Raising the taxes on the ultra rich, raising up on people who earn over $1 million plus gross, even though they are this 1% or what have you is actually paying. These people are paying 40% of the taxes that are coming into New York State.
40% of all tax revenue comes from a 1 percentile.
But Mandami, as much as he wants and he's giving a great pathway for other communists to say this is what needs to be done.
Only Governor Hochul in the New York State legislature can raise income taxes. Which brings us to this pressure point we are now seeing.
It is a leverage strategy. According to reporting and political analysis, the dynamic unfolding looks basically like this.
Mandami telling Governor Hochul if Albany agrees to raise income taxes on high earners to generate additional revenue, the city avoids more aggressive local taxation which will affect middle class homeowners.
If Albany refuses, we'll show you the mayor has the authority to at the city level to pursue increases in New York City property taxes. And he basically stated if you don't raise on the top earners 2% income tax statewide, then you know what, I'm going to go ahead and increase property taxes to nine and a half percent.
And right now. Yes. Will that affect those with mega condos and property owners, commercial as well as residential Manhattan? Yes, but it's definitely going to hit the middle class. You know, the, the little person, the person that mondot me said that we have to protect, that we want to build up the middle class. It's going to hit those that are in Brooklyn, Queens, those that own little tenancies.
Oh, and you can forget about controlled runs because raising property taxes, how are you going to deal with that?
This is not routine budgeting and this is sure as heck not routine negotiations.
This is a fiscal leverage.
I don't want to go to kind of extortion, but it's definitely a power play.
This is placing Governor Hochul and the state lawmakers in a difficult position.
Raise Income taxes on top earners statewide, which provide 40% of the tax base, which already is one of the highest in the nation statewide. Okay. New Jersey currently has the highest state income tax at 11.7%.
Raising it at 2% increases it to almost double that of New Jersey. And then on top of that, add on the federal income tax. On top of it, you're looking at top earners paying over 50% of their income to taxes. And this is all because of all the free stuff that Mandami promised and he wants to initiate. Not looking at maybe, just maybe we need to shore up our coffers because there was a deficit during Eric Adams administration due to Covid and then also with the influx of all of these immigrants and providing housing and such.
Or don't raise income taxes, you know which. Also there's significant issues with raising taxes on these businesses and corporations as well. Or watch New York City potentially raise property taxes to 9.5% locally and see how many of the middle class, those that have their homes will suffer.
Both of these consequences carry consequences.
New York already depends heavily on a relatively small percentage of high income earners for a disproportionate share of its revenue base. 40% increase those rates significantly and you introduce mobility risk. What that means is all those rich people are going to be moving down to Florida, Arizona, California and please go somewhere else other than Florida. We are so oversaturated.
Just saying hi. High earners are often geographically flexible. They have multiple homes. They can pick and choose where they can live. Financial forms are also mobile. Don't think that you're going to have Wall street firms stuck in Wall Street. We saw it. One of the largest hedge fund corporations during COVID moved to Miami.
Capital is mobile.
If enough of these major, major firms, corporations, high income owners leave, revenue projections collapse. And it doesn't just affect New York City, it affects the whole state. And that creates instability.
Now consider the alternative property taxes. Unlike income taxes aimed at top earners, property taxes ripple outward. They affect middle class homeowners in Queens, brownstone owners in Brooklyn, retirees in Staten island, co op residents, small multi family family property owners. And when property taxes rise, landlords pass costs through rent increases follow. Small businesses face higher overhead. Homeowners on fixed incomes feel squeezed and potentially will lose their homes.
So the choice being presented to Albany is stark. Raise income taxes on high earners, make it where it is. Choke holding these high owners or risk property tax increases that hit both middle and upper income residents.
It's not abstract politics, it's economic pressure.
So next look at the spending trajectory. Mondami's bold promises free grocery stores, free bus passes, free subway, free daycare and child care for all.
What intensifies this standoff is this spending trajectory. The proposed budget does not reflect contraction. It does not reflect that. It is like, okay, you know what? We need to see where we can provide the most resources to the city's citizens, the residents of New York City, but while not bankrupting the city at the same time.
And this reflects expansion.
His budget is expansive. It has new commitments, new obligations, long term spending growth.
Critics are asking, and rightfully so, should government expand first and then search for revenue to sustain it?
Or should revenue sustainability be secured before spending accelerates? Because remember, New York City has been operating on a major deficit for some time.
Because if revenue projections fall short, deficits widen. And when deficits widens, taxpayers carry the burden. Oh, and by the way, those of us that pay federal taxes, we're going to be expected to bail out New York City. It's been done in the past. California has been bailed out. New York keeps looking to be bailed out.
This New York City is not just another municipality. It is a global financial hub.
If fiscal uncertainty rises, if tax burdens increase sharply, if political brinkmanship replaces stability, markets respond. That affects the nation. That affects all. All of us. All of us. Investors, the retirement plans, everything.
Developers pause when they start seeing all of this attack on corporate beings.
Investors hesitate.
Residents reconsider whether they should be proud New Yorkers. Confidence is fragile and confidence is everything in a city built on capital flow.
And we're not even discussing what, you know, what, how Mandami is planning on dealing with the deficit shortfall that already exists by raiding, you know, a couple of billion from the rainy day fund rating retirees, health care fund to balance the budget. And it's not because there's an emergency. It has been done before under emergent circumstances. Covid the shutdowns, emergent circumstance.
But now he is putting on the full court press using ultimatums that if you don't give me what I want and tax the rich, then I'm going to screw over the middle class. And by the way, this is an exact playbook out of Fidel when he said we should go after the rich and they will pay and then eventually everybody gets screwed. But this is also a progressive playbook that you will be seeing in other states and God help us all, because we, the people, we the people of the United States are going to be footing the bill on this whether it's through bailouts, through our own retirement investments, our own financial investments being impacted by what is occurring in Albany. So tonight the question isn't simply progressive versus conservative.
Is fiscal policy being used as a negotiating strategy? And if so, who ultimately pays the price if the gamble fails? High earners, middle class homeowners, small businesses, little homeowners, or all of the above?
Power demands accountability on every single level of government. I'm Alina Gonzalez Dockery. Thank you for being with me tonight on we the People.
I have alina.
