CRABBY: Millionaires in Minnesota Can Receive SNAP Benefits

Summary

GARAGE LOGIC
Episode: CRABBY – Millionaires in Minnesota Can Receive SNAP Benefits
Date: April 8, 2026
Host: Gamut Podcast Network

---

Episode Overview

This episode of Garage Logic explores a surprising loophole in Minnesota’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): under current rules, even millionaires with little or no income can legally qualify for food assistance. The hosts, joined by guest Rob Understander, dissect Rob’s real-life experience qualifying for SNAP despite having more than a million dollars in assets. The episode delves into the ramifications of income-only eligibility, the resistance to asset testing in welfare programs, and broader questions about common sense in policy. Other similar examples, such as eligibility for free state healthcare, are also discussed, along with the political gridlock that prevents meaningful reform.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. How a Minnesota Millionaire Qualified for SNAP

• Rob Understander's Story (02:57–14:19)

  • Rob, a self-described millionaire, outlines how he qualified for Minnesota SNAP benefits while unemployed, as the program considers only reported income, not assets.
  • He received $278/month, later increased to $341/month due to medical expense deductions.
  • Rob describes “auditing” the program by intentionally applying, purchasing steak and lobster with SNAP, and keeping receipts to prove his point.
  • Notably, Rob donated an equivalent amount to charity:

    “My wife and I did not benefit from [SNAP] financially. We donated an equivalent amount to my church, charities, and one individual, I believe.” (10:04, Rob)

• Reaction from Authorities

  • Rob testified at the Minnesota State Legislature about the loophole and faced harsh backlash:

    “There was … one [lawmaker] … became so angry and emotional, and he said he wanted to send me … he wished he could send me to jail.” (08:18, Rob)

  • The lawmaker was identified as Rep. Considine.

2. Program Rules and Policy Gaps

• Income-Only Testing in MN SNAP (04:01–11:06)

  • Unlike Medicaid and other aid programs, Minnesota SNAP ignores assets—like homes, cars, or retirement accounts—in eligibility.
  • Most states do not have asset tests for SNAP, though a minority (now 12 states) do.

  • “You’re allowed one home or apartment rental. And one vehicle and a few other assorted things. But … retirement accounts do not count.” (11:24, Rob)

• Attempted Legislative Action

  • Rob worked with State Rep. Jeff Howe to introduce a bill adding asset testing but faced stiff committee resistance along party lines (15:23–15:32).
  • Even modest proposals—like disallowing SNAP for owners of cars worth $100,000+—were blocked.

    “If somebody has a hundred-thousand-dollar vehicle, … before they get any kind of government benefits, they should be required to sell that vehicle … and they would have 70 or 80,000 dollars to spend on food. … It would last well over 10 years.” (16:34, Rob)

3. Parallel Examples: Free Healthcare for Wealthy Retirees

• MNsure/MNCare Loopholes (19:27–25:18)

  • The hosts recount the story of Steve Schweda, who received free Medicaid (MNCare) with almost $1M in assets by retiring with zero income.
  • Several listeners reportedly used the same loophole to get free health care early retirement years.

  “In addition to SNAP, in 2017, I applied for MNsure. So in 2017, I received free health insurance, free food, paid zero Minnesota taxes and zero federal taxes. … And I was a millionaire.” (23:06–23:29, Rob)

4. The Political and Administrative Impasse

• Why No Asset Testing? (26:12–27:38)

  • Main argument against asset testing from opponents: administrative cost.
  • Rob refutes this, noting budgets increased after asset testing was ended, so “they’re not saving money by not doing asset testing.”
  • The hosts and Rob agree: “the argument doesn’t hold water—it just lacks common sense.”

• Polarized Political Process

  • Committees split entirely along party lines (seven Democrats, seven Republicans), leading to stalemates.

  • “It almost seems like, if it’s 7–7 in committee … regardless of whether that bill is good on the face or not.” (38:29, Host Jay)

5. Broader Discussion: Policy, Common Sense, and Public Awareness

• Proposed Reforms & Testimony (29:15–31:14)

  • Rob’s recommendations:

    • Asset testing for benefits.
    • Raising work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs).
    • Counting retirement accounts for eligibility.
    • Ban luxury foods (steak/lobster) and junk food (candy, soda) from SNAP.

    “It’s called a nutrition program. Those things are not nutrition.” (30:55, Rob)

• Resistance to ‘Common Sense’ Fixes

  • Emotional/political investment, not cost, is the main resistance.
  • Repeated calls for “relentless publicity” to keep issue in the public eye and spark change.
  • Hosts joke about using TikTok/AI to raise awareness with viral, absurd videos (41:48–42:38).

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On SNAP Loophole Testing:

  “Millionaire receives food stamps legally.” (05:47, Rob/Host Jay)

  “I bought lobster, literally lobster and filet mignon. … I still have that receipt.” (09:29, Rob)

• On Legislative Resistance:

  “He said he wanted to send me … to jail.” (08:19, Rob, about Rep. Considine)

  “They argued, ‘Well, you don’t want to take away candy from kids. This is right before Easter time. … No, we’re taking away free candy paid for by the taxpayer.’” (31:14, Rob)

• On Broader Implications:

  “I received free health insurance, free food, paid zero Minnesota taxes and zero federal taxes. … And I was a millionaire. What’s wrong with this country?” (23:06–23:29, Rob)

  “Main argument [against asset testing]: administrative cost. … But budgets went up when they stopped asset testing.” (26:32, Rob)

---

Timestamps

• 02:57–11:06: Rob’s journey qualifying for and receiving SNAP as a millionaire; describing the loophole, purchases, and public testimony.
• 15:11–17:20: Legislative proposals to fix the system and repeated political gridlock.
• 19:27–23:29: Parallel stories—getting free healthcare with high assets; others use the same trick.
• 25:58–27:45: Arguments for and against asset testing; administrative cost rebuttals.
• 29:15–31:14: Further reform ideas and pushback, particularly around “nutrition” and allowable foods.
• 38:00–39:27: Political stalemate and party-line votes in legislative committees.
• 41:48–42:38: Hosts joke about using TikTok/AI to make the issue go viral and raise awareness.
• Throughout: Strong common-sense rhetoric, humorous asides, and pointed criticisms of gridlock.

---

Conclusion: Where Do We Go From Here?

The episode concludes with a consensus: despite high-profile testimony, media attention, and clear evidence of the flaw, real reform is stymied by partisan gridlock and lack of public engagement. Rob’s mission continues as he advocates for policy based on both fiscal responsibility and common sense.

“You need relentless publicity, never give up kind of publicity … make Minnesotans care about the issue. And I’m not sure that they do.” (37:46, Host Kenny)

The conversation ends with speculation about potential political changes and encouragement to keep the conversation going—possibly, humorously, through a viral video campaign.

---

Summary prepared for listeners who want the full context and insight of the episode, without the ads, introductions, or unrelated tangents.

Transcript

[A]

Garagelogic isn't just another podcast. It's a trusted voice with a loyal audience. Every day, listeners tune in and pay attention to the businesses we feature. When you advertise with garagelogic, you're putting your brand in front of people who listen and act. We're number one in Anguilla, and we'll make your business number one with G Ellers. Here's what one of our clients had to say.

[B]

Hey, it's Pete Arnold from Hire it Pro. And I've used garagelogic to promote my business for years, and I have seen great results and new clients for my services from the GL audience. I recommend it to any business looking for new customers. Giles are pretty awesome. You just gotta ask for an introduction.

[A]

You just heard how garagelogic delivers results for our advertising partners. Now it's your turn. Reach our engaged audience of G alers and grow your business by contacting account executive mark [e-mail] that's mark.ellisbi.com Put your message where it belongs, right in the ears of listeners who trust garagelogic.

[C]

My name is MacKenzie and I started a GoFundMe for the adoptive mother of a nonverbal autistic child. The mother had lost her job because she wasn't able to find adequate care for this autistic child. So she really needed some help with living expenses, paying some back bills. So I launched a GoFundMe to help support them during this crisis. And we raised about $10,000 within just a couple of months. I think that the surprising thing was by telling a clear story and just like really being very clear about what we needed, we had some really generous donations from people who were really moved by the situation that this family was struggling with.

[B]

GoFundMe is the world's number one fundraising

[D]

platform, trusted by over 200 million people.

[B]

Start your GoFundMe today at gofundme.com that's gofundme.com gofundme do.

[D]

This podcast is supported by GoFundMe. Here we go. Jay, I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger. Today, Today, Today. I have to admit, I have looked into, do I qualify for SNAP benefits? Turns out I don't.

[B]

You don't? No. You're too rich.

[D]

But if I quit one of my three jobs.

[B]

You qualify. You qualify.

[D]

We've got a great guest lined up today.

[B]

We do. We have a big hitter. I tell you, we always get the big hitters, don't we? We get the big hitters, the big stickers, the big shooters that's us joining us today. Kenny, I'm excited about this. As you and I talked about it, we wanted to talk to this guy for a while. Rob Understander is his name from St. Cloud, and great guy. And some are gonna be familiar with his story, some are not. And they're gonna be blown away by his story.

[D]

Right.

[B]

Rob openly talks about the fact that his assets are over a million dollars, which is worth more than a million dollars.

[D]

But somehow Rob's doing okay.

[B]

Rob's doing okay. And hard working guy who earned it, you know, self made man. And he wanted to prove a point about SNAP benefits, which if you're not familiar, I'm sure most are. But Supplemental Nutritional Aid Program Assistance Program is what called and it's for lower income people and it's a nationwide, nationwide thing and it's federal money funneled through the states and Minnesota dishes out the money through the Feds. And so Rob did a little experiment and he's kind enough to join us today to explain how a millionaire can qualify for SNAP benefits and even eat steak and lobster when he wants to. Did I got that right, Rob?

[E]

That's right, Jay.

[B]

I summed it up. Okay.

[E]

Yeah, you did. Yeah.

[B]

Let's start at the beginning. Why did you decide to do this and how did you do it? How did it play out?

[E]

Well, first, thank you for the kind introduction, Jay.

[B]

Sure.

[E]

Yeah, I guess we should start at the beginning. Ten years ago, I was doing some volunteer work for the Central Minnesota Council on Aging, primarily Medicare counseling for seniors as well as some other programs. And we receive training for these programs two or three times a year. We're sitting there, they're handing out SNAP applications in the event that we should go help some seniors fill out the application. Prior to that, we're going over numerous Medicaid programs which all have both income and asset guidelines, descending benefits with ascending assets and income, which makes sense.

[B]

So what you're saying is there are many programs.

[E]

Yes.

[B]

Where to qualify, they take into account your income as well as your assets.

[E]

Exactly right. However, and we get to the SNAP instruction and they're saying it's based on income only. And I raise my hand and I say, what? That doesn't make sense to me because at the time I was not working, my wife was receiving some Social Security benefit, but so low income. And I thought to myself, well, I would qualify this, even though I hesitated to tell people that I'm a millionaire. Minnesotans are somewhat shy about that. But if you want to get publicity and make headlines, that's the Headline, Millionaire receives food stamps legally.

[B]

It's going to be our headline.

[E]

So I went and stood in line at the Stearns County Courthouse and filled out the application. Three days later, they called me, asked a few questions, and three weeks later, I'm getting $278 a month in benefits, which is way above the average, but it's based on income only.

[B]

So you were even making more than what the average monthly issuance would be.

[E]

Exactly.

[B]

At 278, you were the top of the heap as a millionaire.

[E]

And then 12 months later, when I reapplied, it went up to $341 a month.

[B]

Why did it go up?

[E]

I believe there were. We had some. It's quite complex, the calculations for the SNAP benefit, but part of it is we had some medical expenses, which you can deduct from your already low income. So something like that.

[B]

So there's a formula in there that if you have other extenuating circumstances, by year two, you even get more money, even though you've got a million bucks sitting in the bank somewhere.

[E]

Right, right, right. So I decided to. Well, let's. You know, I really. This is wrong, you know. So I embarked on a mission to change it. Worked with my state, then State Representative Jeff Howe, and he sponsored a bill in Minnesota. And I went and testified. That was a fun experience for me. My wife did not enjoy it nearly as much. She was in the audience. It was in a large room. There were 300 people. And prior to testifying, I knew that I had to keep my comments short, like four to six minutes. I had never testified in front of a hearing before, and there were a couple others testifiers before me. And. Yeah, they were up there about five minutes. And I got up there and I was up there for 45 minutes.

[B]

They wouldn't let you go, would they?

[E]

They grilled me.

[B]

Yeah.

[E]

Mostly from one side of the committee.

[B]

There had to be some not happy with you.

[E]

Yeah, right. Yeah, they were, Jay. They were. There was one. I won't. There's no reason to trot on his grave. But he's no longer representative. But they became so angry and emotional, and he said he wanted to send me. He wished he could send me to jail.

[B]

A lawmaker said this?

[E]

Yeah. In the public hearing, Kenny, you know,

[B]

we always want names on this show, don't we?

[D]

Is he Dear Departed? Is that what you're.

[E]

No, no, no.

[B]

He's.

[E]

He's just no longer representative.

[B]

But he said it in a public forum, right?

[E]

Yeah.

[B]

I could go dig the tape.

[E]

Well, if you want.

[B]

Save me the time?

[E]

His name was Considine.

[B]

Oh, okay. I know you're talking about.

[E]

Really?

[B]

Yeah, yeah, sure. Yep.

[E]

Yeah, yeah. But my point is, he wanted to

[B]

send you to jail. He said. Yeah, because he thought what he thought. Oh, you knowingly did this. You knew you were gaming the system, so therefore you took money from somebody who needed it. Was that his argument?

[E]

Well, yeah, I guess. I mean, he thought it was wrong, too. But the hypocrisy is that I was following rules that not only do they support, they refuse to change to change it. Correct? Yes.

[B]

And you did. Now, correct me if I'm wrong. When I watched your testimony from last week, if I remember right, I know you said you dined on lobster and.

[E]

Oh, yeah, that was one of my

[B]

first lobster and steak.

[E]

Before I went to the state with this and the bill, I just wanted to kind of audit the program.

[B]

Sure.

[E]

And I had heard things like people on SNAP could return food and get cash back, and that would be bad, but that wasn't true. So I. But then I also. I bought lobster, Literally lobster and filet mignon. I rung it up consecutively so it would show up on the receipt. I still have that receipt, you know, a copy of it somewhere.

[B]

But you did. You made a point of saying, Rob, that you took some money and donated it, Correct?

[E]

Oh, yeah. Yeah. Thank you for reminding. I always forget that part, Jay. My wife and I did not benefit from financially. We donated an equivalent amount. Not the food, but we donated an equivalent amount to my church charities and one individual, I believe.

[B]

And so you were trying to simply, as you put it, do your own audit of the program. What is it you can do? What is it you can't do with it simply because you wanted to bring about change? At least that's what your testimony was. You wanted this law change or this loophole. It's not really a law. It's an administrative thing that allows it.

[E]

But eligibility rules, eligible rules.

[B]

Right, right. It's administrative. There's nothing criminal we're talking about here.

[D]

And it's a Minnesota thing, which is worth noting because on the national level, they say that assets do count.

[E]

That's a good point, Kenny.

[B]

Good point.

[E]

Yeah. There are, I think there are now 12 states that do look at assets, but most do not.

[B]

Yeah.

[D]

According to what I'm reading, assets with assets. There's no asset limit in Minnesota, meaning bank accounts and vehicles are generally not counted. I'm not sure about the resident, your home or property, but I'm imagining they're probably not.

[E]

You're allowed one home or apartment rental.

[B]

Okay.

[E]

And one vehicle and a few other assorted things. But. Well, and as we mentioned, retirement accounts do not count.

[D]

Right.

[B]

And you were considered low income, actually zero income, because you had just retired.

[E]

Low income. It was joined, as I said.

[B]

Oh, because you joined with your wife. I got it. You did it jointly, so you're still considered low income even with her Social Security. I got it. But essentially, if it had just been you and not your wife, you'd have been zero income in their minds.

[D]

Correct?

[E]

Right. Yeah. You mentioned you seemed interested in the. The lawmaker that became emotional and angry and wanted to send me to Jim.

[B]

Put you in jail.

[E]

Yeah. Well, it got even worse, Jay.

[B]

What do you mean?

[E]

My goal on this was just to make a change in Minnesota because, as we just mentioned, some states do asset testing, but then there's an organization called the foundation for Government Accountability. I found them and they found me. And they have the same mission to eliminate something that's called broad based, categorical eligibility. And this is basically. Now, there are a lot of people on SNAP that they don't look at their income or assets or anything if they're on other programs or if they get even a brochure in the mail. So anyhow, they invited me to a congressional hearing in Washington, D.C. i didn't testify, but I was in the room and. Very interesting experience. It was about two hours along. I'm sitting there, and they're talking about me most of the time. But there, again, it was a senator from Massachusetts. I think it was McGovern. Somebody can. I'm pretty sure that was his name.

[B]

I'm not surprised. From Massachusetts, though, by the way.

[E]

I wasn't either. He said the same thing. He said, I wish I could send you to jail.

[B]

Wow. Like, you're the problem. Wow. You exposed a bad loophole that could cost taxpayers a lot of money if it happened all over the country, not just in Minnesota. You expose it, you do your own thing, and then, therefore, you are now the problem.

[E]

But obviously, I had some friends in that hearing on the other side of the aisle. Sure.

[B]

But isn't it interesting? The rebuttal is, oh, I'd like to

[E]

put you in jail rather than.

[B]

You know what? I'm not crazy. You did it. Right. He could have said that, but I see what you did, and I'm actually thankful. We can fix this now. No, no, no. Instead, we want to put Rob in jail.

[E]

Yeah, well, they can fix it, but they don't.

[B]

They don't to this day it's still not fixed.

[E]

Exactly. Right. Yeah.

[D]

The foundation for Government Accountability, obviously it's a dot org, A non profit. Joe, Joe, I think your name is Jay.

[B]

Right.

[D]

And some of the stuff they're doing and working on right now in the research department maximizing reforms in the one big beautiful bill. They're looking at luxury vehicles to fake emails. Why the food stamp program integrity is more important than ever. Should states bring back the presidential fitness test? USDA should continue to root out fraud among food stamp retailers. And debt and interest payments mean the true cost of welfare programs is even higher. So that's some of their missions right now.

[E]

Yeah, yeah.

[B]

But this has been going on, Kenny, for a while. In fact, Minnesota, while they're trying to close the loophole here right now. And I don't think it's gained any traction, has it?

[E]

No, I mean you if, I don't know if you listened to the entire hearing.

[B]

I did. I sat through the whole hearing.

[E]

You got seven Democrats and seven Republican and they all vote along party lines

[B]

and it was a 77 vote.

[E]

Nothing gets done. Yeah.

[B]

So you're sitting there with something to me that seems to be real common sense. Right.

[E]

Yeah.

[B]

And they do it for other programs. They do the asset measuring. But they're going to dig their heels in on this and say no.

[E]

Yeah.

[B]

That doesn't make any sense to me.

[E]

Kenny. Reminded me of something from that hearing you mentioned. As we said, you're allowed if they did asset testing, you're allowed one house and one vehicle. But I still think it would be wrong to have a Lamborghini parked in your mansion and not count that. You know, so there was a bill or an amendment. I don't know if you heard it that well there. Representative Pam Altendorf brought up.

[B]

What was the. I can't remember off top of my head.

[E]

It was simply to. If you had a vehicle worth over a hundred thousand dollars.

[B]

I do remember her talking about this. Yes.

[E]

Then you should not be eligible for any SNAP benefits. Yeah.

[B]

I don't know why she chose 100 grand, but that's a good number.

[E]

Oh yeah, it's pretty high.

[B]

It's a good number.

[E]

But it didn't matter. They, they, they wouldn't go for that.

[B]

Right, right.

[E]

I can't believe that they think it's more important to get free candy snacks and everything for children paid for at taxpayer expense. I mean, if I had a, if somebody has a hundred thousand dollar vehicle, I think before they get any kind of government benefits, they should be required to Sell that vehicle perhaps by a, I don't know, 20 or $30,000 vehicle, you know, and they would have 70 or $80,000 to spend on food. You know how long that would last me on my grocery bills? It would last well over 10 years.

[B]

You see, you're talking common sense.

[D]

That's a lot of cheese sandwiches. Well, excuse me, Jay, I want to talk about some of how you qualify for these SNAP benefits, and we'll do that when we come back here, because I want to pause for a second and talk about the positivity that Mike Schoonover and his team at Schoonover Body Works and Auto Care exude every day. And that is to our benefit. That positivity is what makes Schoonovers a cut above everybody else. Whatever your vehicle may need, you can find it right there at Schoonovers in Shoreview. I'm talking bodywork, engine work, tires, glass, maintenance, detailing, glass. Very important these days with all the sensors and whatnot. And if you go for Schoonovers for body repair after a crash, that team will act as your advocate with your insurance company. What that means you don't have to deal with your insurance company. They do it and they make sure that you don't get shortchanged with the quality of the replacement parts or even labor time. And they'll always keep you in the loop. They don't do anything without telling you about it. And by the way, that's to me, that's an amazing pledge and I've had to use them a few times, and boy, is that awesome. I'm absolutely positive that your experience at Schoonover and Auto Care, it'll be positive. If you need anything for your vehicle, anything at all, stop in and meet them. They're at 1060 County Road, Ian, Shoreview, and they're on the [e-mail] so, Jay, Rob, to qualify for Minnesota SNAP benefits, households must meet an income guideline, generally 200% of the federal poverty level, be Minnesota residents and be US Citizens or eligible non citizens. You can apply online. Takes about 20 minutes. There's no asset limit in Minnesota, and Expediated benefits within 7 days are available for emergencies.

[B]

This is so interesting because not only does it happen in the SNAP benefits we're talking about. Kenny, as I mentioned to Rob and I mentioned to you, I interviewed a gentleman a few years ago named Steve Schweda, right? Same thing with MNsure. MNsure is our marketplace for healthcare. That's where you can go. It's a state run thing that most people know. Right. Well, Steve contacted me after a couple stories I did. And much like Rob's situation, he couldn't join us today unfortunately. But he said we could retell the

[E]

story, we could talk about it, we

[B]

could talk about it. So Steve also worth close to a million dollars. I think he had 800 or 900,000 in his retirement account. Goes to retire, goes to MNsure to the marketplace. He said I didn't get to choose. All I got was a packet sent back to me that said you're on the Medicaid program which is known as MNCare. So essentially guys, Steve Shweda got free health care. He had like a $3 copay for everything, emergency rooms, medication, whatever it was.

[D]

Jay, how old is he?

[B]

He is now 71 or 72. He was 62 I believe at the time.

[D]

Yeah, that's important.

[B]

So yeah, because he wasn't Medicare age.

[D]

Right, right, Yep, yep.

[B]

So yeah, thanks Kenny, because that does make a difference. So he was just below the Medicare line but he was ready to retire at 62 or 63. It was something like that. And so he calls him and says I think there's a mistake, I think there's a mistake here. I'm worth almost a million dollars. I'm not looking for free health care. I want that to go to people who can't afford the health care to keep the cost down and reasonable for those who truly need it. So Steve was trying to be a good Minnesotan. Right. Steve's doing the right thing. He's saying no, I don't need that, I don't need free health care. They said sorry Steve, it's the way the rules work. Because you're retired now, have zero income, your assets are not measured for eligibility, therefore you're staying on mncare. And I contacted him yesterday or not yesterday, it was last week. And then I think we talked on Monday a little bit more. I said I'm going to retell the story, I want to make sure I got it right. And I boiled it all down and he said yes, that's exactly. If you just say it just like that, that I was worth almost a million dollars in assets with zero income. Cause I had just retired. He didn't have any part time job or anything. They put me on essentially free health care. So he had free health care. There's another example of only assets only. You're another example of assets only when you can clearly afford it and not only save taxpayers money. If you want to put it that way. But you can make sure that money is going to those who truly need it, which most people are okay with. And that was part of the reason why I wanted to get you on and do this long interviews, because I'm like, okay, now there's two guys I've

[E]

met in my world I should mention. So I was about. In exactly the same position about exactly the same year. This was in 2017. Okay.

[B]

Because Steve would have been right around that time, too.

[E]

Yeah, I collected. I was 63. At age 65, I had a company pension kick in, which put me above the threshold for snap. So that's when my SNAP ended. And I followed all the rules. You know, this was part of the audit. You know, you have to report a change in income within 10 days. So, you know, I waited about nine days and called him, and that was the end. But.

[B]

And did you tell me, too. I'm sorry to interrupt. Did you say something to me that your wife. Because of the situation with your wife, you also got free healthcare at the same time. Do I remember that right in the conversations?

[E]

Yeah. So in addition to SNAP, in 2017, I applied for MNsure. So in 2017, I received free health insurance, free food, paid zero Minnesota taxes and zero federal taxes.

[B]

Come on.

[E]

And I'm a. I was a millionaire.

[B]

You're a millionaire.

[E]

What's wrong with this country?

[B]

Well, you've got things. You've cracked the code. You had a good thing going. So let me get this straight. Repeat that for me again.

[D]

You.

[B]

You and your wife had free health care, free food and what else?

[E]

And paid zero income tax, zero Minnesota tax. That was the only year in my life I never paid. But still, yeah, zero state and federal tax.

[D]

Neither one of you were receiving Social Security, Correct?

[E]

My wife was receiving hers early, so at a lower amount. So we had a little bit of income.

[D]

So that must have lowered your benefit level a little bit.

[E]

Probably. Yeah. But then that second year, when I guess we had some medical expenses, I don't really remember, something made it go up quite a bit, you know.

[D]

Okay.

[B]

Yeah, yeah, Kenny, you know, when I was talking to Steve Schweda on the phone, he said to me, also, you know, with his situation, he started sharing it with friends, saying, can you believe this? I don't have to. I could stay like this till I'm 65, until I'm on Medicare, I could get free health care for the next three years, even though I'm worth almost a million dollars. Some of his friends admitted to him that when they found out what he had done. And when they learned it was assets only, they too decided within that year or within, you know, a year or abouts thereabouts, when they were contemplating retirement, they decided to do it because they thought, well, if we can get free health care for the next two, three years, let's do it now. And they took advantage of what Steve had shared with them. Legally, all this was within the rules. But he knows of several people. I couldn't get them to go on camera, but he knew of several other people who then deliberately said, well, I'm going to retire now and have zero income and get free healthcare.

[E]

I'm not sure. And they did. I'm not sure that's true anymore because I have a brother, Hal, who's just retired. He's 64 and he was going through mnsure. I don't remember how it ended up, but he is not getting free health insurance. So maybe they've changed.

[B]

Yeah, maybe they've changed it. But for a while there, that's how it was. And I can't imagine maybe they did change the rules. Nevertheless, right around the same time you were doing it, is my point.

[E]

Right.

[B]

At least at the same point back then you had. What you were doing was snap. And it was the same thing with Minsher, which I just find, again, there's not a lot of common sense when you think about that.

[E]

No. Well, Jay, let me ask you a question. Why is there so much resistance from the left into implementing asset testing?

[D]

That's the million dollar question, is the question.

[B]

That is the question.

[D]

Will they? Have you asked them to their face?

[B]

Yeah. Did you.

[D]

Why are you resisting this?

[E]

Yeah. Have you ever asked as a testifier? I. I wasn't able to ask questions

[B]

in the community away from the, away from the hearing. Have you asked?

[E]

Oh, yeah.

[B]

What do they tell you?

[E]

Well, eight years ago when I testified in Minnesota, it sounds like a sort of a legitimate reason they said doing asset testing. If you think about it, how many people are on snap? I don't remember. Maybe Kenny has that number. But there's an administrative cost to doing asset testing. Okay, so that's possibly one good reason. But let me follow that with saying that in the hearing. Mike Schmidt from America first foundation, another testifier for Representative Pam Altendorf. He researched Hennepin county prior to 2007 when asset testing was done in Minnesota. He looked at the budgets then. Then they stopped asset testing and their budgets have increased 50%. Their budgets didn't go down. So they're not saving money by not doing asset Testing, that was my next question.

[B]

If the argument was it's too expensive, yet the budget went up, then you kind of lose that argument.

[E]

I really would like to. We should have had somebody else from the other side of the fence. But why are they opposed to asset testing?

[B]

My guess would be we'd have been very difficult to get somebody from the other side to join us today, given

[D]

our shows as of late.

[B]

Exactly.

[D]

We haven't made any friends here this

[B]

winter and we've asked a lot of good fair questions is what we've done.

[D]

I thought so, yeah.

[B]

And I don't know the answer to any of that. Why there would be resistance to it. Especially if you have other programs where asset testing is required.

[E]

Exactly.

[B]

Why are you doing it in some but not the others? I don't know.

[E]

Other Minnesota programs such as tanf. There's a different name for it in Minnesota. Minnesota Family care or something?

[B]

No, it's.

[E]

I don't know.

[B]

There's so many academics.

[E]

But there's at least. There's at least two other programs where they do asset testing.

[B]

Correct. And not to do it on the others. Doesn't seem to make any sense. Again, to me, part of the reason I wanted to have you on was. Yes, you have testified to this before. I understood all that. I wanted to be able to share the mnsure story, at least from 2017. Because to me it just seems like again, I get back to what common sense. If you're sitting at a bar with somebody having a beer, talking about this, both of you just gonna look at each other and go, I don't get it. What's so hard about this? If somebody's telling you they're worth a million bucks, make sure they're not on snap. It's pretty easy.

[E]

But Jay, I was just stupefied in this hearing, listening to. Since you want names and. Yeah, it was a public hearing. It was representative Lee, I think, from District 59B in Minneapolis.

[B]

Minneapolis, yeah.

[E]

Were you in the hearing?

[B]

No, I watched it at home. I watched it at home on my

[E]

computer, but just stupefied. So in the. We have made as a nation some progress on food stamps. I'd made four recommendations eight years ago. One obviously was do asset testing. Another one was increase the adult ABOGs. Adult bodied, able bodied adults without dependence called ABOGs. Previously, if you were over 50, you didn't have to work and you could get snap. But the big beautiful bill increased that age up to 65.

[B]

It's 65 now.

[E]

Yeah. So that's an improvement.

[D]

Oh, it's 65. Is it?

[E]

Right?

[D]

Oh, right, yeah.

[E]

Yeah. Increase from. It had gone up once before. But I also recommended that you count retirement accounts. It should be. Because that's what we're living on, you know.

[B]

Correct. I just recently retired, if you will, back in October. I'm still doing part time stuff, but same thing. That's what you're living off of. That is your income now to a certain degree.

[E]

Sure. You know, the other recommendation was, which did come up in the hearing at Minnesota two weeks ago, eliminate luxury and junk food. Candy, snacks.

[B]

Yes. They've been talking about that for a long time.

[E]

It's called a nutrition program. Those things are not nutrition.

[B]

Supplemental Nutrition program.

[D]

I looked it up. You can't get booze and you can't get any THC style drinks. But. Yeah, or tobacco. Yeah, or tobacco. You can get the pop and the

[B]

juice and the candies and all that stuff.

[E]

So in the big beautiful bill, most of you and probably most of your listeners may know that there were provisions for rural health care. Two states from the big beautiful bill. But it came with strings attached. Those strings are that you have to eliminate junk food, candy and snacks on the SNAP program in your state. 22 other states have already done that and we haven't here and we have not. And they argued against it. I mean, again, Representative Lee argued that, well, you know, you don't want to take away candy from kids. This is right before Easter time. You know, we're not taking candy away from kids. You know, we're taking away free candy paid for by the taxpayer.

[B]

And all of the nutritional arguments made for the program, which are good ones, would also tell you that if you're eating Skittles and peanut butter cups, you're going to be hungry again in about four or five more hours. Right?

[E]

Yeah.

[B]

There's no sustainability with those types of food which the whole idea is to keep you from being.

[D]

You got to feed that monkey on your back. Jay, I need my Twinkies and monster energy drinks.

[B]

Excuse me.

[D]

Sorry.

[E]

And then there was the representative did forget her name. She argued. Well, some kids have low blood sugar and they need sugar and. Yeah, what is that? Like 0001%?

[B]

It's not the right argument to make. And I did notice in that hearing that once again there was some. They didn't come after you at all.

[E]

Not to my eye, which I was disappointed.

[B]

Yeah. I was waiting. I thought there's going to be somebody who's going to take him on and call you a scoundrel for what you did. But with that said, with that Minnesota thing, when I'm watching it, I could tell a couple of them were irritated. I think they shared the same sentiments, that they were a little irritated that you did this.

[E]

Sure.

[B]

I didn't get a full appreciation for, gee, thanks. We gotta fix this. It was more of a. That's why the argument was being made. Let's not take candy from kids. They were a little irritated with you without saying so.

[D]

I have a couple of more questions today, but we got to cut away for a second here, so stand by there. I just want to mention the 68th annual Gsta Rod and Custom Spectacular. Here it comes. Just a few days away. It's coming to the Canterbury Park Expo center, the 11th and 12th. That's Saturday and Sunday. Always the official kickoff to the car show season here in Minnesota. The oldest indoor motorized event here in Minnesota. And what makes it special is every single building, every single vehicle in the building. Invite only. So that means only the best hot rods, street machines, customs, and motorcycles from across the Midwest. These are the ones we drool over, the ones that turn heads on the freeway. Bring the whole family. The kids, they've got a lot to do there. We've got a scavenger hunt. Let the kids sit in a race car that's really cool. And they can even grab a free Hot Wheels from the Sergeant Hot Wheels. That's while supplies last. The builder builders competing for rewards. It should be good. And it's all this weekend, 9am to 8pm on Saturday and Sunday the 12th from 9am to 6. Tickets are 18 bucks online or $20 at the door. Six bucks for juniors. And if they're under 6, they stroll in there free. Go to gstarod-custom.com did you get that? Gsta rod-custom.com so, guys, when. When the wife. When we moved up here, she was between jobs. We didn't have health insurance. So I tried to apply for. I believe it was called Min Care.

[E]

Right?

[B]

Yeah. Men Care.

[E]

Yep.

[D]

And it was during COVID which made things very complicated. And I got one story on the phone and a completely different, different story on the computer. And both of these stories, both of these stories were completely opposite and opposing each other. And I never. I wasn't able to qualify. And I would have had to pay. The income was fine.

[B]

Had to.

[D]

Had money, could pay for it. But I wasn't able to qualify because I don't have patience to sit on the phone for 90 minutes or apply and apply and reapply on the computer. I'm wondering what your experience was like, Rob. Was it as easy as AI says it is on my computer that, you know, you'll have the benefits in seven days and it's only a 20 minute phone conversation, or did you find it to be an ordeal?

[E]

Kenny, ten years ago it was easy. I went on the website and basically plugged in my income and it told me what I had to get for insurance and.

[D]

Wow.

[E]

Yeah, it was easy. Now, as I mentioned, my brother did it recently and I. I don't think it was as easy now. Yeah, but I don't know. But it was easy 10 years ago.

[D]

Too easy, right? Evidently. Like the old days of Jay. Did you ever bilk the state for unemployment insurance?

[B]

I never did.

[D]

Oh, boy. Back before computers, it was a dream. You get fired and it's like you're on vacation.

[B]

Yeah. Downsize.

[D]

I'm traveling all over and living it up and getting a check from the state. That's changed now, too, with computers and everything. Yeah, yeah.

[B]

No, I never. I never had that advantage, Kenny. But.

[D]

Oh, well, I tell you what can I say, I'm good at getting fired.

[B]

Well, I've been fired. But. But I remember I got fired from here in radio and then went down to tv. New. I'm back down to TV news right away.

[D]

Yeah.

[B]

So I never had to deal with unemployment.

[D]

So where do we go from here, Rob? Yeah, well.

[E]

Well, I don't know. I mean, we. We tried again. I. I think. I think publicity is good. I think if we got control of the Minnesota House, we may be able to get something done. And I mean, if you would have

[B]

had one Democrat on that committee.

[E]

Yeah.

[B]

Just one more to say this is a good idea.

[E]

The bill would have gone forward.

[B]

It would have gone forward.

[E]

Yeah.

[D]

But you need relentless publicity, never give up kind of publicity. And you have to keep it in the public eye every single day and make Minnesotans care about the issue. And I'm not sure that they do.

[B]

That is. You're spot on. You just gotta. You gotta keep doing things like we're doing today. Talking about it, Kenny, because eventually you would think common sense would prevail. Because it almost seems like as I'm watching these hearings, Kenny, every week and then talking to you about them and what we should cover, what we wanna talk about. It almost seems like if it's 7. 7 in a committee, no matter what, if it's brought forth by a Republican.

[E]

Yeah.

[B]

The Democrats are gonna dig their heels in. If it's brought forward by a Democrat, the Republicans. And it's always seven. Seven. Regardless of whether that bill is good on the face or not.

[E]

Right.

[B]

It's a weird dynamic up there that I haven't seen in a long time. Well, maybe the last session, I guess, cuz it was evenly divided. But you take this biennium and it's a very strange biennium in that so many bills are stalling on. 7. 7, 6. 6 votes in every committee if it's a somewhat controversial bill, if you will. You know what I mean?

[E]

Yeah.

[B]

And so again, one Democrat could have easily said, you know, I'm gonna split with my caucus on this one because it just makes sense for my constituents. And it would've moved forward, but they're not willing to do that. It's a stalemate up there.

[E]

Then it would have moved forward and who knows what would have happened in the Senate, but at least it would

[B]

have got out of committee and sent over to the Senate.

[E]

And then getting a new governor would help.

[B]

Yeah, I mean, you never know what the next election's gonna bring, but. Good question, Kenny. What's next?

[D]

I'm hearing a lot of false hope from both of you guys. Yeah, I mean, you know where we live, right?

[B]

Exactly.

[D]

Well, Rob, thank you so much for coming in.

[B]

Yeah. Great tale. I know you've told it before, but it was great. Again, don't give up.

[E]

I won't. It's my life mission now.

[B]

It was worth telling again.

[D]

Good. We appreciate it.

[E]

Thanks for having me.

[B]

You bet.

[D]

All right, Jay can take one quick break then and come back. I want to talk a little bit about the Minneapolis city council. Meanwhile, open water season has finally arrived in Minnesota. And that's good because Warner stock in New Richmond is the perfect place to find your brand new boat. How about a new alumacraft? Warner stock specializes in alumacraft boats with your. Your option of motor. What do you want? A Suzuki, Yamaha, Mercury. They have all of those outboards. They also specialize in one of the best pontoons ever made. The premier pontoons. These things are fantastic. And Warner stock loves trades. And if you want to upgrade your power unit, get rid of that old two stroke and put a four stroke. Hang a four stroke off the back. Warner stock is a champion in outboard repowers. From sales to service to storage. Warner stock in New Richmond is the place to go for all of your boating needs. We're talking repairs, electronic installs. Need a trailer? Oh, need a dock. It's right there in the name. Go to Warner's dock. You can trust them to keep you and your family on the water and happy this summer. Four generations of family committed to an amazing dealership experience. They're celebrating 79 years this year. Get yourself to Warner stock in New Richmond today. Okay, I'm going to run something by you, Coles. Having Gabe around is a huge asset because he's young and he's not dumb. And as to the question about how do we make Minnesotans care about something they don't even know anything about, the answer is tick tock. We put together an ad of a video ad. It's got to be 15 seconds. Because nobody has any kind that nobody can stick with anything longer than 15 seconds. Right. So we're going to show Rob in Mercedes S series.

[B]

Yeah.

[D]

Walking into or walking out of a restaurant or. Or whatever. With a big haul of free food. And then cut that and go to lobster and steak and everything. And in a grand, beautiful house. And I think that would. I think that would wake people up. We'd have to have the voiceover. We'd have to have the graphics. It's got to be quick, but we have to show them so they see it. We got to club them over the head.

[B]

Yes. And that is the way to do it. With those short video clips and a little over the top with a little absurdity, Even though it's not totally absurd because he did buy steak and lobster. You're right. No, you're spot on.

[D]

Okay, we agree. Now. Let's go to the expert. Gabe. I think with the use of AI

[E]

I think we can make that a reality for you, Kenny.

[D]

Even cheaper. I hate AI God, I hate AI but if it's going to benefit me, what the hell?

[B]

Then I love it. Then I love it. But I got to get somebody, Kenny, to tell me what the hell it is and how it works.

[D]

Oh, it's evil, Jay.

[B]

It can be. I've seen it in the newsroom and

[D]

it's weird to me, but I've been paying way too much attention to the Minneapolis City Council. I moved out of Minneapolis. I shouldn't care about any of this.

[B]

It's a train wreck you can't turn your head away from.

[D]

What do you think of when you close your eyes and you hear the word bathhouse?

[B]

I think really bad endings.

[D]

Like 80 year old, Bent over, shriveled up, tiny little secrets. You know what I mean? Oh, yeah.

[B]

No, no. I don't even want to leave. That's why I said really bad.

[D]

Nasty edges going at it hammer and tongs in every single corner. And warm, grody, tepid water that Nobody wants to go in 100%.

[B]

It's just.

[D]

Well, I've got good news for you. What's that? The city council was considering bringing back the bathhouses. They've decided to put off discussions.

[B]

You want to know why they got so much heat for that? There was so much heat for that and so much blowback that quickly from constituents and others. That's why that happened right away. Right away. Because the absurdity of it. Kenny, Kenny, think about this. In Minneapolis now, we've talked about bathhouses, decriminalization of paraphernalia.

[E]

Oh.

[B]

Parking in car. Or. Excuse me, sleeping now in cars. Right.

[D]

And other than the bathhouse, the paraphernalia and the sleeping in cars is already going on.

[B]

Already happening.

[D]

The paraphernalia law passed. It's a Minnesota thing. Right. And what they're saying is, well, we just want to, you know, be in line with the Minnesota law.

[B]

But I'm hearing Fry's going to veto it. Yeah.

[D]

Yeah. That's interesting.

[B]

Yeah. Because even though it is state law and the whole argument was to bring this into compliance with state law, it's still nuts, Kenny. It's nuts.

[D]

You've always been able to buy paraphernalia in the state, at least back to the 70s.

[B]

Correct. But we're talking about. Back then, Kenny. We were talking about pot pipes for

[D]

those bongs and pots and all of the goodies. And the secret to a legal transaction was you don't make any drug references when you're in the store or you're buying it. It's all for tobacco purposes. And there's usually most places used to have signs all over saying it's for tobacco purposes. I don't think we're worried about that anymore.

[B]

No.

[D]

But I don't know.

[B]

When I was in college at Winona State University, the Harvard of the Midwest, there was a head shop called the Earwax.

[E]

Yeah.

[B]

As we called them head shops. Right. And there was bongs, and they had the sign saying, this is for tobacco use only on and on. This paraphernalia stuff they're talking about, if you looked at what. Everything that was stricken from the current law on the proposed amendment to the law was needles, syringes, all the nasty. The spoons, the. All the nasty, nasty, nasty stuff.

[D]

Yeah.

[B]

That can spread.

[D]

Right.

[B]

Infect the child. You know, much different.

[D]

Weed. All of those products are given out freely now.

[B]

Yes, they are.

[E]

They're given.

[D]

Well, not. Not a bent spoon, but clean needles.

[B]

Clean needles are. Yeah. No, no, no spoons. Right. But. But the needles Are.

[D]

I worked at a record store for a while in the 90s between radio jobs. And we'd have kids come down from Grand Marais or up from Des Moines. And they get in there and they start saying, let me see that weed pipe. And it's like, well, you dumb, stupid hillbilly, you need to leave the store now. Because we don't sell weed pipes. We sell tobacco pipes. And they're like, oh, shucks. Well, maybe strap on a brain before you come in.

[B]

Strap on a brain. So we're talking all the stuff that we added. When you add it all up, Kenny, think about what's really happening in Minneapolis. You've got property taxes out of control two years in a row, Double digit increases. You've got commercial real estate falling by 30%, commercial real estate value falling. Some of those buildings downtown that would cost 180 million to build are now being sold for pennies on the dollar. All this stuff, right? Minneapolis police not properly funded. All these critical infrastructure needs that are not being met. And what are we talking about? Bathhouses and drug paraphernalia?

[D]

What do you know about the Ride Shore? Excuse me? Rideshare ordinances. It sounds like they're considering postponing the start date. I have never understood that, and I don't understand how that became such a big issue in Minneapolis.

[B]

Is that the rideshare ordinance, does that have to do with how much they're paid? Yeah, yeah. I think it's essentially this, if I remember correctly, because I did cover some of this. I'm embarrassed to say it a couple of years ago. I think it's trying to simply make sure that whatever formula is used by the rideshare companies, that it's at least the equivalent or better than the mandatory minimum wage. I think that's what it is.

[D]

As far as sleeping in your car.

[B]

I've done it.

[D]

Which actually is my retirement plan. I mean, Van Life is all. I want to go to Van Life.

[B]

Why not?

[D]

Like our buddy Bob Davis? But why do we even have to bring it up? Is it just simply due to the fines? Is that what we want to do? Probably just want to get rid of

[B]

the fines, to eliminate the fines and to have, like a specified area, right. That if it's a parking lot of such size and scope or, you know, I think there's definitions as to where you can now do it as opposed to just anywhere.

[D]

I've got a great idea.

[B]

What's that?

[D]

How many parking ramps in downtown Minneapolis and downtown St. Paul are empty right now?

[B]

Oh, well, there's there. There's some in uptown. Right, right. Uptown is not filling up its parking lots by any chance?

[D]

Oh, oh, my idea. And I said it on GL for uptown. Calhoun Square. They've got their own parking ramp.

[B]

There you go.

[D]

Two or three stories. So there's where we're gonna park. Isn't Calhoun Square empty down?

[B]

It's got maybe one or two.

[D]

The first floor, then it's pretty empty. The first floor of Calhoun Square. Open air Drug Mart. Anything goes open air drug party.

[B]

Like it? Where do the bath houses go?

[D]

Upstairs, upstairs, Just an escalator ride upstairs and close her off and bang, bang, bang, here we go.

[B]

Wouldn't you want to make. Don't you put the bath houses on

[D]

the lower, lower, lower level? No.

[B]

Oh, you know, there's. I don't know. I bet you might want to do low.

[D]

I don't know. Those are. Do those two demographics go together? Is that like eggs and bacon or not?

[B]

It's eggs in a patty. These eggs in a sausage patty.

[D]

I don't know where to go from here.

[B]

Have you talked to quit smoking? Because every time I'm laughing, I'm hacking up a lung.

[D]

Have you talked to our guest last week about anything that's been happening? Are you leaving her alone?

[B]

I kind of left her alone a little bit. She texted, I text that she fell in love with you. And I said I got a little jealous over that. I did text her Monday or two. What day is today? Wednesday. Right. Yeah. So sometime in the last couple days. And she, I, I, I'll say this. Well, okay.

[D]

Careful.

[B]

Yeah, yeah, I'll. Yeah. She's. It's still a clown show. She still thinks there's a lot of tantrums in a clown show. There's something I cannot share with you on the air. I just realized I'll share it with you off the air.

[D]

I want to know if there was any pushback after she appeared on our show, if any of those other numbskulls listened to it.

[B]

No, I can. Oh, okay. About that. I can tell you not that she. No, I don't believe so. But that's not surprising because they're afraid of her. They know they can't push too far.

[D]

Yeah.

[B]

However. However, two other city council members I know contacted me through a text saying they had listened to it, and one said, why am I never been invited on your show?

[E]

Oh.

[B]

So.

[D]

Really?

[B]

Yeah. And I'll tell you about that off the air.

[D]

Are we talking opposing viewpoints?

[B]

No, no, no, no. Well, not from what we talked about with Latricia? No.

[D]

Okay.

[B]

No. So that was more in line with. With wanting to hear what Latricia had to say because they were on her side with that issue. The opposing folks were. My guess would be if they listened and Latricia said they would, they didn't push back on her at all. And I understand why. You know what I mean? They don't want to take on Latricia.

[D]

One more question for you. The Hennepin county commissioner's meeting. Joe proposed something outrageous today. Who's the guy that took over for you down there doing investigative work?

[B]

Bill. Ben Henry's nightside. Yeah. So Ben.

[D]

So it'd be Ben. And he might have been the one that was at that meeting.

[B]

He confronted her last night. Did you see it?

[D]

He. And that wasn't enough for such. Sutch says I'm old enough now and angry enough now where I don't care what anybody says or thinks about me. And I would not have let her walk out on me like that. I would have been screaming at her. And I tried to tell Joe that that's probably not a good idea if you want to do future investigative work and more interviews. Have you ever done anything like that? As awesome as that sounds, as fun as that may be.

[B]

No. You have to.

[D]

Well, tell me something I can tell to Joe.

[B]

Well, I will say this. I always made sure the camera wasn't rolling when that happened.

[D]

Oh. Oh.

[B]

And made sure there was nobody too close with an earshot or eyeballs to. You have to pick your spots because if you do do it, you can only do it once. And then you are. Right. You're done. Right. You're not gonna get an interview.

[D]

That is very old school. That's like being on the golf course.

[B]

Yes. You want to tell me. Don't want me to tell you a funny story about how crafty you gotta be with these cameras and mics quickly.

[D]

Yeah.

[B]

And that's one of them where you don't. You don't. If the camera's on, there's a mic near or there's a lot of people, you let it go. If you're chasing him in a parking lot and it's just the two of you and they give you the treatment he got. When the camera's off and the mic's off, you can give him a what for. Right. And let them tell. You know, tell them what you really think because they are elected officials.

[D]

Listen, you son of a bitch. Like that. Because that's what I think. That's what Joe and I Are both thinking.

[B]

I was not. I always avoided the cussing because that's where they can call your boss and say, he cussed at me.

[D]

Yeah, yeah.

[B]

But no, it was a harsher tone of what's going on here. You're an elected official. I'm the eyes and ears of the public. Talk to me. Funny story about one thing we do always when we go in and we know it's going to be somewhat of a. I don't know how to phrase it, other than a confrontational interview. They're not happy to see you.

[D]

Yeah, yeah.

[B]

And they'll say, now put that camera down and stop rolling right now. You know, or whatever. Well, they can't make you stop rolling, so you always say to the photographer and remind them, and they're always good to remember, keep that. But when they say that, put it down on the ground so they don't think you're videotaping anymore. Keep it running cuz you can. But we're also recording everything that's being said to us. And one time in the 90s, when I was doing an investigation on the Bertram boys up north, two state representatives who were basically shaking down their constituents. They wanted money from them, you know, campaign contributions, and they would threaten them with legislation if you don't give me a contribution. And they both had to leave the legislature because of our stories. Well, we went to Jeff Bertram's office, and he said, put that camera down. Shut it off. You know, and so the photographer smartly put it down on the ground. Okay, so now Jeff Bertram doesn't think we're videotaping him, but we're recording him. And on the tape, he openly admitted to some of the things he was doing, not realizing he was being recorded. Yeah, because he didn't think he was being recorded. He didn't come out in 100%. It was a. It was a halfway to confession. But he said, enough. And it's been 30 years now. It's hard for me to remember verbatim. He said, enough. And so when we left that office, I said, when you put that camera down, you kept it rolling, didn't you? He goes, oh, it's gonna be all there on audio. And we ran the audio where he got.

[D]

Was it Joe?

[B]

Huh?

[D]

Was it Joe?

[B]

No, it was Timmy Jones, who was my photographer at the time. And so it got Bertram in trouble because he kind of was threatening toward us while kind of tacitly admitting that some of it was true. But his constituents deserved what they were getting because they weren't, you know, Doing whatever he thought they should be doing. It was insane. But he thought once we put that camera down, Kenny, that since we weren't videotaping, all was good. While we continued to audio. I don't know if we should give away all these tricks and tips to everybody, but that's how it goes. You gotta protect yourself at all times.

[D]

I wanna give a message to both the guilty and the innocent.

[B]

Yeah.

[D]

When the news people are at your doorstep, get the hell out of there. Do not talk to them under any circumstances. Even if you won the lottery. Don't talk to them. Do not talk to news people.

[B]

Probably the best PR advice you can give, even though I don't like it,

[D]

but people love being. People love being on tv.

[B]

Oh, they do?

[D]

Yeah. When is this gonna air?

[B]

And I gotta be honest with you. Listen, man, if it's somebody who's won the lottery, they'll love to talk to you. Not me. That's my.

[D]

That's my number one plan. When I win, nobody is gonna be

[B]

able to like talking to anybody.

[D]

Not even my. Not even my family.

[B]

You don't like talking to anybody, so there's nothing new there.

[D]

I think we're done here.

[B]

Oh, are we? Oh, shoot. I was just starting to have a lot of fun. Damn it.

[D]

Yeah. We got to get out of here.

[B]

Thanks, J.

[D]

That was a good one.

[B]

That was a good one. Thanks to Rob. I mean, I know he's told the story before, but, man, that's a great story.

[D]

Yep. Thanks to Gabe, too. Once again, Gabe, job.

[B]

Yeah.

[D]

And thank you for listening. And please come back next week. We've got another good one.

[B]

We do. We do. And the hint is tax day.

[D]

Yes.

[F]

Hey, garage logicians, stick around for a preview of this week's American Experiment podcast. We're covering the DFL's proposal to create a new tax on ICE agents, the continuing debate over earmarks for nonprofits, or as I like to call it, corruption, and then a firestorm of top hits from the Capitol that you won't want to miss. On the back half, we're talking to Bill Walsh about our brand new polling on Minnesota views towards immigration since Operation Metro Surge. We got everything you need to know in here, starting with the DFL proposing to tax ICE agents. They have a whole bunch of bills that they've proposed aiming at ICE agents. In particular, things that have to do with trying to rein in the federal government. Things that are clearly not legal or irrelevant now that this is kind of over.

[G]

Yeah, but really good pr.

[F]

Yes, but really good pr. So on Wednesday, a bill in the House Taxes Committee would request require those agents who weren't Minnesota residents but made more than $15,000 in wages while working here to file a Minnesota tax return. They think they could bring in $600,000 this way. Democrats argue that the whole operation cost a lot in state and local resources, so these agents should pay their fair share. Minnesotans will effectively subsidize a federal enforcement operation that they did not request and that they do not support, said Representative Athena Hollins. Moreover, enforcing this requirement sends an important message. Minnesota will not allow its tax base to be eroded by temporary federal deployments that shift costs on our communities. Well, Minnesota taxes nonresident income already and that applies to federal government employees. Currently, a person needs to earn about 15,000 from Minnesota Sources to be required to file and remit as a non resident. That would apply to any ICE officer who's here long enough to meet that threshold too. However, the bill creates separate treatment for the ICE officers, subjecting them to tax on the first dollar of their income. So while Minnesotans tax authorities can make federal law enforcement abide by the same rules they impose on everyone else, obviously legally they cannot discriminate against them, and yet they propose this bill anyway.

[G]

They have to treat ICE officers the same as professional athletes, basically, is what this is. Because we talk about this a lot. I think. Actually our economist John Phelan does a lot of work on professional sports and incomes. And when a professional athlete comes to town and works in our town, plays a basketball game or a hockey game or a football game or whatever, they certainly make more than 15,000. Many of them do, even if you split their income, millions of dollars over the course of a game. So they all these guys, these guys that play professional sports have accountants that have to split up their state income tax around the country.

[F]

So it just impacts all kinds of people, lawyers, pilots. Pilots don't like flying to California because they have to separate that out at a higher level.

[G]

So of course we're gonna single out ICE activity because it's worse than all those other things. I just disagree with the premise. Of course, her premise is that ICE came and came and then all these costs were borne by state and local governments because ICE came to town. If ICE comes to town and does their job and there are no protests, no one knows ICE is here, they'd make their arrest. There's no strain on state and local government. All, I would say 90% of the strain on state and local government is from the protests that occurred trying to stop and impede and protest what ICE was doing.

[F]

That was a preview of the American Experiment podcast. Tune in every Tuesday afternoon wherever you get your podcasts.