It's a wake-up call in more ways than one.
Time for some sh** you need to know.
Yes.
Well, speaking of the war, Pete Hagseth faces a second day of...
hearings today.
He is going to get grilled again by Democrats on Capitol Hill.
The senators are taking their shot at him today.
They get their first opportunity to confront or praise the Pentagon chief over his handling of the war.
If you watched any of his testimony in the House yesterday, depending on what side of the aisle the House member questioning him came from, he was either the second coming of
every military genius known to man or the most inept goofball who needed to resign that you've ever run into.
I'll let you decide which side you want to put him on, but Hexeth battle with Democrats and a few Republicans yesterday during an nearly six hour house armed services committee hearing.
where he faced sharp questioning over the war's costs and dollars, lives, and the diminishing stockpiles of critical weapons.
And if you watched any of this, you saw he was as demure and full of courtesy and cooperation as all other Trump administration members that have had to testify in front of Congress.
He was, oh, he was smug.
He was arrogant.
He was screaming.
ad house members, but that's just Pete being Pete.
The Armed Services Committee is going to hear a similar presentation on the Trump administration's 2027 military budget proposal, which would boost defense spending to a historic $1.5 trillion.
Hag Seth and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan Cain, will again stress the need for more drones, missile defense systems, and warships.
They're now also likely to face tough questions about American troop levels in Europe.
After President Donald Trump yesterday leveled a new threat against NATO ally Germany, suggesting he could soon reduce the U.S.
military presence
in the country as he feuds with Chancellor Frederick Mars, MERS, over the Iran War, sidebar that came after a 90 minute phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
90 minute phone call with Putin, the same Putin whose country was giving our troop placements to Iran.
Just so you know that.
Yeah, I don't know if there's a connection.
I'll let you decide.
If the Senate hearing is similar to yesterday's in the House, Republican senators may focus on the details of military budgeting and voice support for the operation in Iran.
Democrats, however, are expected to press for answers on strategy and the conflict.
Now, in a tenuous ceasefire and Hegseth firing of top military leaders, he refused to answer questions on how much longer the war would last or how much more it would cost.
When questioned about that he immediately made Rokana was Representative Rokana was questioning him about the cost and Instead of answering he would just he just kept shouting.
What is the cost of Iran having a nuclear weapon?
What is the cost?
But then he also said that their Nuclear capabilities have been obliterated right contradicting himself.
So it has been
Same old song and dance for anybody.
It's always a show from the administration.
It's a show
That's
essentially what
it is.
Very
performative.
Their testimony usually has little substance or fact based with it, and because a lot of this administration is unqualified to hold the positions that they do, he was a weekend Fox anchor, right?
I know.
That's
what
Pete Hegseth did.
I mean, let's be realistic.
He has some time in the National Guard, and he was a weekend anchor on Fox News.
That is his qualifications for being in charge of the Department of Defense.
So when you have to sit in front of senators and representatives who are fully prepared, who have fully analyzed, who understand the budgets, who understand the military, and they start asking you questions, it simply evolves into some sort of performance art, is what happens.
Yes, and every time he was asked about gas prices prior to the war and now, he would just scream, more in California, more in California.
What?
You're a child.
You're a child.
You're a not serious person.
You are unqualified.
You are ill-informed.
Right.
And you are nothing but another lapdog for the president.
I mean, it essentially goes back to the same arguments.
And this is why, as you know, this administration started rolling out the cabinet and wanting to, for the confirmations, why
Some Republicans who eventually did confirm these these cabinet members,
but a
lot of Democrats had so many reservations because it was because of these conversations right here They
they knew
exactly what this was going to look like and that you know while while some of these cabinet members may have been qualified to do something in the administration they were probably Very unqualified to be
the head of some sort of cabinet and department.
And that's essentially what we're seeing.
And I'm just, here's the thing, I remember when Senate hearings used to be boring and nobody used to tune into
them and I
really miss those days.
Like I miss those days when it wasn't theater and nobody was talking about Senate hearings because those are just a normal process of government.
And even when they were contentious, there was no screaming and yelling and demonstrative stupidity.
It was just,
Debate right, but we don't have that because to debate you both sides need to have their facts both sides need to be well informed and in these cases One side is well informed and whether you agree with the Republicans on the on the committees or not They're informed the Democrats are informed
The people from this administration that sit before those committees are not.
They have a list of talking points and God forbid you go any deeper with your questioning.
You will expose them.
as the adults that they are.
And they always come in, and this is fact because photographers have gotten photos of them while in the room.
They always come with a list of talking points and big bullets.
And
who they're going to yell at, targets.
And these are proven facts.
These are photos that have been proven to be sitting on the table in front of these cabinet members during these processes.
And this is just how this administration works.
Um...
Yeah, I just, I miss boring government.
I miss boring government where they were just operating and we would get mad about a few different things.
That's what I miss.
Those
times are long gone.
They are,
they are.
Well,
maybe one day.
Any other us we need to know?
Yes, there is a few things.
In fact, we got to bring it right back here to South Dakota, going back to my childhood roots
because we were
talking about that.
Back to Wisconsin.
The federal government is suing the state of Wisconsin.
It's in response to a lawsuit that Wisconsin,
Johnson filed last week.
Attorney General Josh Call is going after companies state officials believe are exploiting loopholes around gambling.
Now, the lawsuit names five companies, including Kalshi Poly Market, Robin Hood, and Coinbase.
Call says because those prediction markets let people make investments tied to the outcome of sporting events, it's basically a way around sports gambling laws.
However, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission says, probably didn't know that was actually
says that it already is already regulating those companies.
The agency argues Wisconsin's lawsuit is now interfering with federal law.
The commission has filed similar lawsuits in response to actions other states have taken, including New York and Arizona.
Okay, so here's my question.
If this lawsuit is going to interfere with federal law, then why isn't federal law doing something to
regulate it?
Did you hear the regulating?
That would be based on what the title of the commission
is, you would think that that's what they were doing.
Doesn't really seem like that's happening considering what we're having.
And this goes beyond sports betting, right?
We've
seen... Oh, it's everything.
It's everything about the war,
right?
When bombs
were going to
drop in Iran.
Well, and this is, it goes back, we talked about this last week, when Josh called, filed this lawsuit, and it does these, the...
the semantics that the companies are using, that they're not a bet, they are a contract and a predictive thing.
It's very much, I did not have sex with that woman kind of semantics.
So we're trying to, they're parsing their words very carefully.
But yes, you can bet because you are betting.
You're betting.
You're placing a wager.
You're betting
to win money.
Right.
So you can do it for everything.
Everything and that's why we're coming into we had the special forces soldier arrested last week because Somehow he made a lot of money betting that Maduro would be out of Venezuela by a certain date.
Yeah, and what do you know
turns out that might have known a thing or two and actually cashed in fairly big on that one, so I don't
know which is probably what the
They're saying, well, look, we are regulating.
We're finding things irregularities, but...
It's weird.
We also can't trace who those people are, how they're getting their information, and where the money is coming from.
Weird.
Weird.
That's not really regulation in my book, but what do I know?
No.
And it's... Because we know...
Attorney General Josh call he doesn't he's not putting up with anything.
He's filing lawsuits all the time, right?
So all right, let him let him come let him see I I would imagine maybe it's part of that intimidation move where you all right Well, we're gonna sue you back and okay sue me back
more performance more performance theater perhaps
it's all kabuki this whole government is kabuki
It's a wake-up call in more ways than one.
Time for some sh** you need to know.
All right, proposed rule change could cut federal benefits for disabled adults.
That's the Trump administration that's worth considering.
If approved, this rule would cut monthly federal benefits meant to support disabled adults and indigent, older people who live with family members.
ProPublica first reported on the proposed change on April 28th based on information from four federal officials, internal emails, and a federal regulatory listing.
The organization analyzed actuarial figures from the Social Security Administration and found that as many as 400,000
poor and disabled people and indigent older people could have their support cut or eliminated.
The supplemental security income program run by Social Security Administration provides an average monthly payment of $737 to about 7.4 million people with severe disabilities and to indigent older, and I've said indigent now more than I've said it in
the rest of my
life.
Indigent older people as of
as of early 2026, according to Congressional Research Service.
One factor Social Security considers when determining SSIL eligibility is whether a person lives in, quote, a public assistance household.
For decades, Social Security narrowly defined a public assistance household as one where every person in the home had to receive some form of public assistance, if even one person in the home.
did not receive such benefits, it would hurt the disabled person's chance of qualifying for SSI.
Supplemental nutrition assistance programs or SNAP was not among the qualifying programs.
The proposed rule change would remove SNAP from the list and again require all household members to receive public assistance.
So if you if you have an older parent living with you who gets those benefits
This would erase their benefits.
And again, their whole financial care would be on you.
I did some rudimentary research on how this is going to affect Wisconsin.
And these are very rough numbers.
But right now in this state, more than 30,000 adults with intellectual and developmental abilities live with family members.
We're talking at home with parents, siblings, loved ones.
And here's the part that a lot of people don't realize.
About a quarter of those caregivers are over the age of 60.
So that means if you have aging parents as you rightly pointed out 60 70s even older and they're still providing daily care for adult children with disabilities
This is something you're going to want to pay attention to.
And across the state, about 1.1 million Wisconsinites are actually caregivers in some form.
That's nearly one in four adults.
And on average, they're providing 26 hours of care every single week, often unpaid, helping take care of those family members through the assistance that they get because of the federal government.
But we didn't vote for this.
We certainly certainly did not a lot of people did not vote for this in fact, but Okay, it's crazy crazy numbers
again.
It's led to should we point out the irony that while Services like this proposed cuts to average Americans are coming.
There's no shortage of money for right an increase in defense spending right and tax breaks for
the wealthiest amongst
us.
We talked about that a few weeks ago on the show.
When the president released his budget for the upcoming year, it was the most unfriendly people budget that I think we've seen in this country in maybe ever.
but it was very defense friendly.
And here's the thing, I believe our military should have what they need to defend this country.
I am not one of those people who has defund this and defund that.
I believe that our military, our police forces should all be funded in some capacity.
They should have what they need to do their jobs, but at the same time, I also believe people should have what they need to live and take care of themselves.
And both can be true.
Yes.
You can have both.
Yes, absolutely.
So we should try to do it.
What other S do we need to know, Jamie?
In other headlines this morning, it turns out we're coming closer to Wisconsin.
Open Records advocates have landed a major legal victory for transparency throughout the state.
In a decision that was released on Tuesday, a Dane County court sided with the Badger Project and its co-plaintiff, the Invisible Institute.
This is a Chicago-based journalism organization in their lawsuit that demanded that the state
Department of Justice released the names and work history of every certified law enforcement officer in the state.
Judge Rhonda Lanford gave this ruling and Tom Kamnick, who is the lead attorney and founder of the Wisconsin Transparency Project, that's a law firm dedicated to enforcing the state's open records law, said, quote, this decision is a powerful victory for the right of the public to know who has been entrusted with a badge and a gun.
filed a lawsuit in 2023 when the state DOJ partially denied the request for the policing data.
The department cited safety and privacy concerns, especially for undercover officers.
The data requested would include an officer's name, birthday or birth year, zip code, and his or her work history.
In response to that denial, the Badger Project and Invisible Institute sued in 2024.
The plaintiffs argued that since undercover officers don't actually use their
true names, releasing them wouldn't put them in jeopardy.
The state DOJ's 2023 denial was unlawful, the court wrote in the opinion that was released on Tuesday.
Citing an earlier decision, the judge noted that law enforcement officers necessarily relinquish certain privacy and reputational rights by virtue of the amount of trust society places in them and must be subject to public scrutiny.
That's a mouthful this morning.
That is a mouthful.
Yeah.
Boy, I have a problem with- It's a hard life.
I have a problem with this because there are, there's a reason that some, I think police need oversight.
Yes.
We'll
say that right
out of the box.
Agreed.
I don't think police records need to be available to the public.
I think they should be available to agencies and law and, you know, the state.
to conduct investigations, to conduct oversight, all of that.
I don't think you and I need to have access to police officers' information that is going to lead to nothing but trouble.
There's no reason unless I'm part of a lawsuit.
And again, then the law firm would be able to get the information.
The state will be able to get the information.
You and I don't need to do that.
No.
Everybody who's disgruntled because they got a speeding ticket every lunatic
who
has some gripe either real or imagined can get I just I don't like it and the The defense of undercover is really flimsy.
Yes,
because even if you even if you get a fake undercover name and you have the rest of their information you Someone would be able to find out who that officer is
So that defense doesn't hold water for
me.
I thought it was interesting that as part of this ruling as you read through it and the courts make it clear that transparency for them is what still matters here.
I thought that it was interesting they point out that without that type of transparency
We can't track the misconduct.
We can't understand how officers move from one department to another.
And we can't have fully informed conversations about policing in our communities.
And I don't agree with that.
I don't think we need to be able to track misconduct.
I feel like that should be done at the hands of the government and the people in charge of those departments.
And journalists, I think
journalists should be able to
get to those records.
And as journalists, you can request that information.
Right, like that's a request and it's usually a fairly quick process that you go through for journalists.
But I don't really need to know.
why police are moving from one department to another.
I feel like sometimes that's done just like anybody else.
Maybe you need to move to a different department for your own health reasons or because maybe you don't want to be on the street anymore.
Maybe you want to do more of a desk job.
I don't feel like I need to know that.
And I think at some point we have to trust our police forces.
Listen, I know a lot of people have questions about how police operations are run across the country.
But I think at some point you also have to step back and...
not community police, everything too.
Because I don't know if that gets us very far, if we're constantly tracking what's happening in our police departments.
I feel like this is more of a, this feels like one of those public scanner type things to me, right?
Yeah.
Where you can follow along and- Easy,
Gladys Kravitz.
Yeah.
We don't need to know.
But I think the information should be there for people who absolutely need it.
And I think, as you mentioned, journalists, certain organizations, certain departments, they should absolutely be able to get that information.
I don't know if all of us need to have it in our fingertips, though.
We do not need.
The public does not need certain information.
All right, but we need to know why gas prices are going up and up and up.
And finally, pardon me, and as you need to know,
Gas prices in southeast Wisconsin are expected to spike now through the first few days of May.
The main cause is a power outage at the BP Refinery in Whiting, Indiana, which is where the bears will be playing, Frank, a key supplier for eastern Wisconsin.
ongoing labor disputes and seasonal refinery maintenance mean there means there's less backup supply available.
Analysts say some stations may raise prices sharply while others will increase gradually over several days.
Now Wisconsin's average gas price is already up to about 393 per gallon rising quickly from last week and last year.
Southeast Wisconsin is going to be hit the hardest while western parts of the state are seeing lower prices due to a different supply source.
Prices could top $4 a gallon in some areas.
Global factors are also at play, including tensions in the Strait of Hormuz, affecting oil supplies.
Experts say the spike could last four weeks before prices stabilize.
So
I
took your advice, Jamie.
You
said yesterday was supposed to be one of the highest days.
I went and filled up.
Stick or shock?
Yeah.
Again?
I'm like, how does it go up every day?
I'm starting to see photos from around Wisconsin.
There are some places at at least $4 a gallon.
Chances that it could actually be over that before, as you mentioned, we see our prices stabilize.
So take care of those wallets.
