EP 99 Clothing vouchers and gov charity

Summary

Mountain State Libertycast – EP 99: Clothing Vouchers and Gov Charity

Date: August 9, 2026
Host: Tye Ward
Guest Co-Host: Taylor "TANF" Richmond

---

Overview

In this episode, hosts Tye Ward and Taylor Richmond break down the recent controversy in West Virginia over TANF-funded clothing vouchers for low-income families. They examine the broader question of whether government should be in the business of charity, the implications of federal and state funding for welfare programs, issues of dependency and fraud, and the ripple effects on society and local economies. They also discuss the rise of Democratic Socialism, government-run grocery stores, and the philosophical battle lines between libertarianism, socialism, and capitalism.

---

Key Topics & Discussion Points

1. Political Updates and Local Campaigns

• Tye and Taylor’s Candidacies:
  • Taylor is running for State Senate, District 13 (Fairmont/Morgantown) ([01:13]).
  • Tye is running for House of Delegates, 15th District (Roan/Work Counties) ([01:47]).
  • Both stress their desire to inject Libertarian values into their races.

---

2. TANF Funding Cuts and Clothing Vouchers in West Virginia

The Controversy

• TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) Funding:
  • Summer saw headlines about reduced Family Resource Center funding in WV due to the end of COVID-era federal funds and state-level belt tightening ([05:34], [06:02]).
• Clothing Vouchers Delayed and Shortened:
  • Morrissey administration delayed $200 clothing voucher rollout by about a week, then cut the program short ([08:14], [08:23]).
  • Public backlash focused on the timing and communication.
• Voucher Use Data:
  • Administration shared “AI-produced” data: ~49% of voucher funds withdrawn as cash from ATMs ([09:14] onward).
  • Concern cash isn’t always spent on kids’ clothing.

Fraud, Incentives, and Oversight

• Reality of Government Assistance:
  • Both hosts argue it’s naïve to believe all cash withdrawals are spent as intended. Abuse happens ([12:30]).
  • Quote (Tye, [12:58]):

    “If you think that there’s some sort of moral hierarchy to income levels...you are a level of naive that I would love to be like.”

• Lack of SNAP Cuts:
  • Criticism that SNAP (food stamp) abuse is also known but rarely results in funding cuts, possibly due to it being 100% federally funded ([11:20]).
• Program Dependence:
  • Taylor:

    “The principle of the matter is that you can’t become dependent upon the government because ... at any moment ... the federal dollars could ... dry up.” ([16:58])

• Libertarian Philosophy on Charity:
  • Charity through government is coercive and breeds entitlement plus scrutiny ([13:36], [15:20]).
  • True charity should be voluntary, responsive, and less prone to waste and abuse.
  • Quote (Tye, [13:36]):

    “Charity is in no way shape or form a correct role of government. ... You’re forcing some people to pay for other people charitably against their will.”

---

3. Broader Economic and Social Context

Administrative Missteps

• Timing & Communication Critique:
  • Both agree cutting or delaying the voucher with little notice is heartless and poor governance ([15:20], [34:14]).
  • Taylor’s advice:

    “If you’re going to cut government spending ... this is not the time to be doing it.” ([15:40])

  • Proposes phase-outs instead of abrupt cuts.

Dependency and Society

• Deep, Multi-Level Dependency:

  • Not just families—the entire WV economy (grocers, retailers) leans on federal dollars ([21:41], [27:41]).
  • Quote (Tye, [27:41]):

    “A lot of these grocery stores in these rural places, a lot of time ... that’s a lot of their income, unfortunately, is these, these benefits.”

• Cycle of Perpetual Programs:

  • “Temporary” programs become permanent; dependency becomes generational ([16:58]).
  • Ties to national debt and inflation:

    “All this government spending is just driving up inflation and making it harder for us to be able to purchase these things.” ([27:41])

Private Charity vs. Gov Programs

• Advantages of Private Charity:
  • Immediate accountability—if a church or nonprofit abuses funds, people donate elsewhere ([18:50]).
  • Charity tied to incentives like job training or social support, not endless hand-outs.
  • Examples: United Way, church drives ([18:50]).

Social Pressure and Dignity

• Role of "Shame Culture":
  • Discusses positive and negative aspects of social pressure as motivator ([21:41], [29:30]).
  • Example: Decline in smoking rates mainly due to social stigma, not bans ([29:30]).
  • Mutual aid societies offered help but expected responsible behavior and lifestyle ([29:30]).

---

4. The Rise of Democratic Socialism & Government-Run Markets

• NYC’s Government Groceries:

  • NYC is introducing city-run grocery stores with prices set 30% below private markets ([35:26]).
  • Both hosts expect rationing and inefficiency; see it as classic creeping socialism/communism.
  • Taylor jokes about needing a "grocery store library card" and required photo ID ([36:54]).

• Michigan DSA Victory:

  • Socialist candidate wins Democratic primary for US Senate in Michigan; implications debated ([37:52], [41:54]).
  • Moderates vs. socialists divide in Democratic Party.

• Classical Critique of Communist Schemes:

  • Direct comparisons to historical failures; expect market distortions and eventual collapse or rationing ([43:39]).
  • Bill Maher’s monologue cited:

    “They’re basically stealing lines from the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital and other things by Karl Marx.” ([43:36], Taylor paraphrasing).

  • Tye’s critique of mainstream liberals who object only now:

    “Everything you’ve been espousing for 30 years, this is what it leads to.” ([43:59])

  • Reminder: “This isn’t ‘capitalism vs. socialism’—America hasn’t practiced real capitalism in at least a century.” ([45:59])

---

5. Final Reflections

• Philosophical Reset:
  • Libertarians want to help but see government assistance as ultimately self-defeating.
  • Social good must be pursued through voluntary community—charities, churches, local ties.
  • Creeping statism leads to economic and social decline; best intentions create long-term problems ([49:38]):

    “The road to economic demise is paved with good intentions.” (Taylor, [49:38])

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• [12:58] Tye:

  “If you think ... because somebody is lower income ... they’re like little angel babies ... you are a level of naive that I would love to be like.”

• [13:36] Tye:

  “Charity is in no way shape or form a correct role of government. ... You’re forcing some people to pay for other people charitably against their will.”

• [15:40] Taylor:

  “If you’re going to cut government spending ... this is not the time to be doing it.”

• [18:50] Taylor:

  “As soon as that gets out, that church ain’t getting another dime from anybody... You can’t do that with TANF. You can’t do that with SNAP.”

• [27:41] Tye:

  “A lot of these grocery stores in these rural places ... a lot of their income, unfortunately, is these, these benefits.”

• [34:14] Taylor:

  “Fiscal year ‘26, it’s $200. Fiscal year ‘27, 175 ... Those are approaches that as libertarians, we can get behind.”

• [43:36] Taylor/Bill Maher paraphrase:

  “They’re basically stealing lines from the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital ... this is literally communism.”

• [49:38] Taylor:

  “The road to economic demise is paved with good intentions.”

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• [01:13] – Taylor announces State Senate run.
• [06:02] – TANF explained; state/federal funding mechanics.
• [08:23] – How clothing vouchers work, reasons for delays/cuts.
• [09:41] – Data on ATM withdrawals, questions of program abuse.
• [12:58-13:36] – Tye’s “level of naïve” comment; libertarian philosophy on charity.
• [15:20-16:58] – Critique of voucher cuts’ timing; dependency dangers.
• [18:50] – Private charity accountability vs. government programs.
• [21:41-27:41] – Government spending’s economic effects; cultural incentives.
• [27:41] – Government assistance as economic driver in WV.
• [34:14] – Sensible phase-outs for welfare, not abrupt cuts.
• [35:26] – NYC government grocery stores proposal.
• [37:52-41:54] – Michigan DSA candidate; broader trend of socialist wins.
• [43:36-43:59] – Bill Maher/Manifesto references; critique of “liberal moderates.”
• [49:38] – Final reflection: “road to economic demise.”

---

Tone & Style

Conversational, dryly humorous, and deeply skeptical of government. Repeated reminders that Libertarians care about people, but see government as clumsy and ultimately harmful in tackling social needs. Teasing and inside jokes abound, but serious, policy-driven analysis forms the backbone.

---

Summary Takeaway

Clothing voucher drama is a microcosm for the central libertarian critique of government charity—abuse, inefficiency, dependency, and warping of private life and markets. Real progress, Ward and Richmond argue, requires re-privatization of charity, reduction of government involvement, and honest conversation about difficult trade-offs. Meanwhile, the country’s political left continues to experiment with more direct socialism, a trend the hosts see as doomed—and a useful real-world test case to remind voters of socialism’s failures.

Transcript

[A]

Hello and welcome to the Mountain State Liberty Cast. I am your host, Ty Ward. I am joined as always by my co host, Taylor Taniff Richmond. Hello, Taylor.

[B]

Sometimes I can guess what you're going to call me. That was not what I expected, but I'm well, Ty, how are you?

[A]

Oh, pretty good. What does TANF stand for?

[B]

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.

[A]

No, it's not.

[B]

Pretty sure that's exactly what it is.

[A]

Is it really? Yeah, it seems too simple. Okay, well, all right. So right off the top, this is a Value for Value podcast. If you enjoy anything you hear on here and think you get value from it. This is a volunteer effort. Go to lpwv.org hit that donate button. Goes to the party. But it benefits us as we represent the Libertarian Party of West Virginia. Check us out on social media, on Facebook, Instagram and X. Subscribe to this podcast, comment wherever you get podcasts. We're available on Spotify, Iheartradio, itunes. Any of the podcatchers, give us a review. Share it with your family. That helps us out a lot. So, Taylor, you're running for the State senate in District 13. Elaborate.

[B]

Yeah, State Senate, District 13, which is the greater Fairmont and Morgantown areas. Been a pretty exciting race so far. I think it's going to have one of the most viewed or watched races in the state as it's one of the few that have competition among Democrat and Republicans and obviously now Libertarian in the mix. So looking forward to interjecting libertarian principles and values into the conversation and probably what will be the most contentious race in the state this November.

[A]

Yeah, for sure. I'm running for House of delegates in the 15th district, representing Roan and Work counties. I will be. I'm gonna try to get this podcast uploaded pretty soon. Like tonight. I want to say I apologize for uploading all these podcasts so late. It's. It gets away from me and yeah, no excuses. Just try to do better.

[B]

Right.

[A]

So like a champion. Yeah. So train. Train of thought lost. But anyway, I'm running for the House of Delegates, so this. And the only reason I said that other thing was because this weekend, starting today, is the Wort County Junior Fair. I will be attending Friday evening. It's a livestock show and sale. I'll be going to their buyer's dinner. I'm going to try to, unfortunately, the rest of my rabbits. Yeah, with that. But also I, you know, I was kind of gonna bring my family and enjoy the fair as well, but all of them are too busy to do anything with me, so I will Be there by myself. So, loser, I'm gonna be riding. Riding the zipper by myself. If I have throw up on my shirt when I go to the auction,

[B]

I'm hoping that's a ride and not.

[A]

Dude, you don't know what the zipper is?

[B]

Nope.

[A]

Are you Amish? The zipper. The big thing that looks like a zipper at every single fair ever. And it goes in a big. Looks like a chainsaw and it flips you around crazy.

[B]

I wasn't a big fair kid growing up.

[A]

Oh, my God. No wonder you're a libertarian.

[B]

You couldn't afford the fair.

[A]

My goodness. Taylor. Not raised in a foreign country. Raised in just normal West Virginia. Doesn't know what the zipper is. Anyway, everybody else listening to this knows what I'm talking about, so. Yeah, hopefully I don't have any.

[B]

Hold on. Sidebar. Speaking of things people don't know about, I had a debate or arguing with my wife. Do you remember the. It was like a pizza place, and it had the bears that were like the animatronic bears in the background that would, like, play music. Like they were a band and they had, like, little skits and stuff. Do you know what I'm talking about? I forget the name of the thing, but it was pretty popular.

[A]

Chuck E. Cheese.

[B]

No, that's a rat, bro. No, no, go ahead.

[A]

Other animals.

[B]

No, this was specifically all bears, and it was something bonanza or something like that. Anyways, my wife, then.

[A]

No, I don't remember.

[B]

She was from Elkins, so. Okay. I think it was a pretty southern West Virginia. Like.

[A]

Yeah. No, I don't. Yeah, other than Chuck E. Cheese, because Chuck E. Cheese had animatronic. It wasn't just the rat. It was other band members that played. So I guess it might have been a.

[B]

We weren't big enough for a Chuck E. Cheese in Beckley.

[A]

Really.

[B]

No.

[A]

Huh. Well, yeah, there's that. That is a. That's one thing kids nowadays don't. Really. Won't really see much of with our litigious society is when we were kids, there was always, you know, knockoff versions or whatever the popular thing is. So that's probably what that was.

[B]

Billy Bob's Wonderland is what I'm referring to.

[A]

No, I've never heard of that in my life.

[B]

Yeah. Barbersville.

[A]

Interesting.

[B]

We went to Billy Bob's Wonderland in Barbersville. Okay. Sorry, Barbersville?

[A]

You went to Barbersville?

[B]

Oh, you had to get out. You had to escape Crawley County.

[A]

That's a weird place to go. Oh, man, I didn't know anybody went to Barbersville. Voluntarily. Um, so, yeah, so I'm running for the House district, so if you go to the work county fair, look for me there. I'll be wearing one of my T shirts and being super awkward. So if you want to talk to me, talk to me. If not, that'd be fine with me as well. So.

[B]

Yeah, no, you'll be his wife.

[A]

Oh, yeah, yeah, exactly. If you see a strange single man in his 40s walking around the fair, it's. It's me, probably.

[B]

Please feed him.

[A]

Vote for me. So, yeah, Taylor started off the podcast with the whole tan of commentary. So there's a big brouhaha. We've kind of talked about it on here a little bit, but it is

[B]

the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, by the way. I did confirm that I was right.

[A]

So I guess TANF pays for a mult. A variety of things. We talked a little bit.

[B]

It's a block grant from the federal government.

[A]

Yeah. And the state administers it. And I guess like most other things, the state usually puts a little. Has to put some skin in the game in order to qualify for the grant, which is one of the problems with a lot of these grants. And so things like our family resource Centers, they get some of that money. And one of the big story, a couple months ago or maybe just a month ago, I don't know, summer flies by. But they were reducing the amount of funding to these Family Resources Centers because, like government does, they received a bunch of money during COVID and it went to this, the TANF spending. And instead of, you know, making it super known that this is temporary, this is a temporary increase. We can't keep this forever because it's the federal government giving us more money. The state simply just kept on the same level of spending coming out of the state budget. And the Morrissey administration has decided that we can't afford to do that anymore. So they just decided that they were going to reduce the spending. So that's not responsible in any way, in my opinion. I mean, obviously as libertarians, we don't believe that spending should exist to begin with, but if these agencies are operating off of this money and all of a sudden you give them a month to either try to find somewhere else to get the money or cut resource, cut services, that's pretty crappy. Even us heartless libertarians could see that that's a pretty crappy thing to do. And, you know, I commented on. Or the Work County Family Resource center here. I talked to their director and she had said, yeah, it's going to be A big hit for us. But they structured their funding so that no one source is a, you know, ride or die funding source. So they'll still be able to operate. They'll just have to cut some services, which, you know, I was really, you know, it was encouraging to hear them being that kind of fiscal, fiscally responsible, but I guess some other agencies across the state weren't that responsible and it's causing a problem. Well, I'm just going down the storyline later. They decided, the Morrison administration decided they were going to. I don't remember. And you can refresh my memory. If they said it was going to be delayed or they weren't going to do it at all, but they weren't giving out the, they delayed it, the

[B]

clothing by, by like seven to nine days from that ballpark when it was supposed to start or be accessible, I guess.

[A]

Yeah. So with that TANF money, annually they give out $200 clothing vouchers to low income families before the school season. Before school starts. And so you can't hunt them.

[B]

It's on that kind of season.

[A]

Yeah. People were freaking out about that and saying it was irresponsible, blah, blah, blah. And so they decided to do it and they, the funds went out. Well, they cut it short this last week and the Morrissey administration has put out basically that one of the reasons they're doing that is because of the TANF funding cut and that. And they said this today, which I'm, I'm like, I don't know why they need to. It's the framing is what is kind of just really clunky. But they put out this AI produced chart showing the ways people use the clothing vouchers. And I have had people tell me this, that you don't have to just use the, the voucher comes in like a debit card kind of thing and not a kind of thing. It comes as a debit card. And you can go to an ATM machine and withdraw that money off of that debit card. And so they're saying 49% of people, that's how they use the funds, is they go to an ATM machine, ATM machine, ATM and get the money off of it. And, and then every single one.

[B]

How you wish, Taylor.

[A]

Every single one of them takes that cash and goes and buys clothing. Right?

[B]

Well, Mr. Morrissey said they're all buying booze and cigarettes. It's probably some variation somewhere in between.

[A]

Yeah. So. Yeah. And so we wanted to talk a little bit about that. And you know, it's. And I, I had a friend that commented on the governor's post and she made a really good point that, that I kind of wanted to talk about and you can elaborate as well. But she said, you know, everybody knows the trope about, you know, SNAP benefits, the EBT cards that people, you know, go in the parking lot and sell their EBT cards to get drugs and cigarettes and alcohol or whatever, get cash basically in exchange for a food stamp card. And it happens, it's not a fake thing. It happens who? It's hard to tell what the, you know, they're like we've talked about before with a lot of these government programs. Fraud is almost built into the way that they're run is if you're able to just give somebody your card and they can go spend it, there's no way of tracking that.

[B]

So the Morse administration put out today a chart that said that like 45%, something less than 50, but between 50 and 40% of the cards were utilized at ATMs, meaning they were turned in for cash and not utilized. And another like 45 was used for clothing at the proof stores. And then like 10% or whatever was done. Electronica, online website, you know, Internet purchase. So yeah, 45% of it is going to cash. But again, to your point, the comment, we don't know what happens then with that $200 that is taken into cash.

[A]

Well, so my, to finish the first point that my friend had basically said, well, we know about all this SNAP stuff and nobody suggests cutting the SNAP funding and cutting off food stamps, but, but they've decided they're going to do it for clothing vouchers. And you know, this is basically the intent of this is directly, you know, assist under privileged children to get clothing for school. And you know, my point is, yeah, SNAP funding comes almost completely from the federal government. There's no benefit. There's no benefit. Yeah, that's what I meant. Snap, there's no benefit for them to cut it. Like it doesn't matter to them. It's just, it's free money. And the tanf. The point is, is the governor has, this is the point they're having to put skin in the game. A lot of this increased TANF spending is coming from our state budget. And so there's skin in the game for them to, you know, have to keep track of it. So yeah, they're going to, they're going to look at that and say that's something we want to cut. And while, you know, we're kind of joking here that you know about the, the Cash part of it. If you are under the impression that there is some kind of, you know, I think we've mentioned this here before, Taylor, but, you know, it's worth saying again, if you think that there's some sort of moral hierarchy to income levels, that because somebody is, has a lower income and they qualify for these programs, that suddenly they're, they're like little angel babies and they can do nothing wrong. And you think that the fact that they, they're able to get cash out of an ATM with that card, they're all just, you know, it's, there's no significant amount of people that is using that money for anything other than clothing. Clothing. You are a level of naive that I would love to be like.

[B]

It's important to remember that it's not the kids that are, you know, getting the money. It is some adult that has to go with them to do this.

[A]

So.

[B]

Yeah, but, and that's, you know, a common tactic with any type of government program. Right. Is that, especially ones that are so emotionally charged, is that you say, oh, we can't cut this because it's taking off clothes and shirts off the backs of poor kids. So that's always going to be the immediate retort of, oh, it's basically the fourth rail. It's untouchable as, you know, a program.

[A]

Yeah. And, and here's the, and we've said this again and we just keep repeating it, but the, the difference is in, you know, both of us, you know, full empathy, full understanding, you know, the idea of there are people that are, you know, could use a little help up in, financially once in a while, whether it comes from the government or not. We, we're fully, you know, charity is great. The main point, the, the principle is the charity is in no way shape or form a correct role of government. And this is, this is one of the reasons why, because just like with food stamps and we've, or, you know, snap, whatever the correct PC way of saying that is, now people say we shouldn't have, we shouldn't be telling people what they can eat. Well, I don't want to tell anybody what to eat either. But when you're taking somebody else's money and it's being taken from others by force, you've now put yourself in a position where somebody else has a pay in what you buy as far as food goes, because you're not using your money. And just like this, you put yourself under a level of scrutiny. And some people might say that it's offensive to these people the idea that they're suggesting that they're not using this money correctly. Well, when you're providing charity through the government, you've now put yourself in a position that you're taking somebody else's money. So there is going to be a level of scrutiny that comes with that. And that's one of the many reasons we don't, we don't think that this should exist just on not, not even on the, the principle of it not being the role of government, of it creates a class structure that doesn't need to exist in the way that it does because you're forcing some people to pay for other people charitably against their will.

[B]

Yeah. A couple things I want to say to the issue in general. First, I would say that, you know, agree with everything you just said, but one thing I would point out is, you know, as two individuals who are looking to have seats in the legislature, have some role in government, I would say that applaud the administration's attempt and desire to right size and net out the waste, fraud and abuse that exists in these systems and get better bang for the buck, if you will, especially from federal dollars and also better stewards of the tax, the state, taxpayer dollars that are in play here. One thing I will say, though, is, and you know, we made the post, the party made the post earlier last month. You're going to do this if you're going to cut government spending. And we're, you know, we're opposed to these kind of assistance programs that are handouts and not hands up, this is not the time to be doing it. I mean, unfortunately, you have so many families. The estimate is 55,000 families or children are basically expecting this at this time. And you kind of pulled the carpet or the rug out from underneath them right when they're expecting it. So one, I would just say that I think the timing of it has been terrible. I think the communication around the reasoning and everything else has been terrible. I think just the whole thing has been a disaster on Governor Morrissey's part. In terms of the role of what he's trying to do, I would give him the benefit, I think. Was it the Hamlin's razor or whoever's razor? Don't, don't ascribe to malice. What is generally incompetence or something else. Right.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

So, so there's that. The other thing that I will say is, again, when you talk about these programs, and again, the title is Temporary Assistance for New Family, the T being a very important initial in that acronym, this was initially passed by the federal government back in 1996. And we're 30 years into this temporary thing because although there was designed to have a sunset, it continually gets reauthorized and reinitiated on its own. Not like snap, which is part of the farm aid bill, but it's on its own thing that continually gets extended. But here's the thing folks. At some point, very possibly this could go away. At any moment, you know, any administration, any year, the federal dollars could, could dry up. Now we know that it generally doesn't happen, but the problem is, and the principle of the matter is that you can't become dependent upon the government because one, as I said, it could dry up, it could get cut or what have you. Or two, it could become a political, football or chess piece as people are making it out to be. This time, both times, both ways and both examples, it's these children that suffer because they have become dependent upon these programs or the families have become dependent on their programs to pay for their clothes because money is fungible. If I know I'm getting $200 from the government to pay a certain bill, then I know that's $200 I don't have to put aside for it and I can go and spend on a new golf club, you know, whatever I want to do with that $200. So there, there is that. And to your point about the libertarian principle, Ty, the issue, the thing that I want to emphasize, it's not that we don't support helping people. We're all about social safety nets. We just think that the government is the worst way to do it because generally they happen to grow and manifest and expand in ways that are not beneficial to the individual and become wrought with this waste, fraud and abuse. Why did they give them EBT cards? Why are these debit cards, Ty? Well, it's because you basically don't have any shame or any kind of like social pressure of needing government assistance. You just go and hand them a card and no one thinks anything of it. That was a big thing. A lot of programming today is, you know, there is some social incentive to not be in a food line, not be, you know, needing certain benefits and handouts and hand ups. There's no longer that with these government programs they try to make it as, oh, you know, just something you get. And they grow in their cost in terms of the amount of taxpayers dollars that go towards it. And they grow then also in their ability to be corrupted by waste, fraud and abuse. So that's why we support Initiatives by churches, charities and nonprofits. Because most of the time there are some that are just general. We did a backpack drive at our church. It's just a backpack drive. We give those out to kids. But a lot of the programs you think of United Way and others that are out there, a lot of their assistance is tied to things for the adults receiving that assistance, whether it's job help for obtaining a job or improving their current working status or what have you, it comes with those things. Or there's like off ramps to the assistant. It's like, you can have it now and we're going to help you get to a better spot. But it's. This is not going to be something that you can guarantee and receive indefinitely. And that way those organizations are more accountable to their dollars and the help is more, again, I guess we've been saying a hand up and not a handout. And also they're accountable if we find that your church's backpack drive is, you know, pocketing the dollars you donate or all the backpacks and school supplies are going to the church employees, kids or whatever, as soon as that gets out, that church ain't getting another dime from anybody. It's instantaneous. I mean, we see what happens when organizations like Wounded warriors, when their dollar per benefits or dollar per charity rate was something like 90% of 90 cents on a dollar was going to administrative costs. They got absolutely raked over the coals and they saw their donations absolutely fall, the bottom fall out. And other organizations stepped up and filled in those gaps and then they improved and now they're back among the good graces. You can't do that with tanf. You can't do that with snap. The oversight is supposed to be in the legislative branch and some of these administrative bodies, but it's not happening. And we see, and only until a governor like Morsi steps up and tries to fix some of it and call out some of the issues again, partly due to the comments of how he's doing it. But obviously he's going to get blasted for not caring about the poor kids that are benefiting from the system.

[A]

Yeah. And, you know, there, there is the, you know, moral and, and, you know, social aspects to it of there being, you know, the dignity of, of all of it, like you're saying, not having to face the shame ramifications and, you know, you know, you might suggest that just like during Christmas when you do the, you know, the. What's it, what's it called something, a child. The, the tree where you go pick up angel tree. Angel tree, yeah, sorry. You could do an angel tree for clothing. You know what I mean? Where somebody submits their children their clothing sizes and boy, girl, and they go pick the. And say, well, the kids don't get to pick their clothing. And they don't get. Okay, well, if you're to the point where you're asking other people to buy clothing for your children, there's a certain amount of like, well, okay, beggars can't be choosers. Like that whole. That, that. That term exists for a reason. Like, you're not really in a place where you need to be. You can't be really be picky. You know what I mean? And so, and that part is like a, you know, culturally we've come to this point where there's no. None of that exists. And not that I really like a shame culture, but there's a certain amount of shame that, you know, motivates people to, you know, improve. And that's, that's the problem, Taylor, is, you know, statistically, we've had a war on poverty since the. The 60s, the late 60s, and the poverty rate has gone up. You know, we lost the war on poverty, evidently. And that's the problem with a lot of this is people, like you said, the dependency. And, and the greater issue is, the sinister part is it's not just the dependency of the. The individuals receiving the benefits. You know, my. My grandma was telling me when. When her kids were little, she got. She had food stamps. But when it first started, she said, you, like, if you got like $120 in food stamps, you had to bring in 80 bucks and pay for them. Like, you physically had to go in with money and give them money, and then they would give you, you know, 80 bucks and they give you 120 bucks back in food stamps, something like that. And so you had to put a little skin in the game. It wasn't just, you know, you could just get free. And now it's just, you know, a card meal to your house because you don't make enough money or you reach some kind of income threshold. And like you said, there's. It looks just like a debit card, and there's a certain amount of that that is valuable culturally, that it really does motivate people to improve. But what it's become is it's, It's a. It's a Keynesian economic driver is. Where did you say that those SNAP benefits come from? The farm bill. Right. So the USDA administers it, and there's, you Know, Walmart in Spencer, where, where I am, I don't think that Walmart would be open without food stamps. We're an incredibly poor county. And, you know, the surrounding counties, some of like work counties, even poorer if they come to Spencer for shopping, like these grocery stores in these rural places, a lot of time, like, that's a lot of their income, unfortunately, is these, these benefits. And it, and it helps farmers, it provides subsidy to them through, you know, all of the commodities that go into producing all these products. They're buying clothing vouchers. You know, I'm sure some of these retail stores in West Virginia, there's a huge boom during this time with all these clothing vouchers. People spending money, more money than they might have otherwise. And so that's, that's a dangerous economic driver when the government is using, you know, Keynesian methods of, you know, spending drives the economy, and the more money you can get into the market, the better. That's, that's, that's why, that's the reason we're in the place we're in. We're $40 trillion in debt because of these kind of spending programs. And it's not the $200 clothing voucher itself. It's all of it. That's a drop in the bucket for what the state gets. 71% of our state budget is federal money. I know the Department of Commerce, there's at least $20 million in poverty grants that, that I know of. And there's much more that goes to DHHR for these pro, you know, temporary heating, you know, relief, tanf, all these different grants, block grants that come from the federal government. That all drives debt, that all drives inflation. So ironically, all of this spending just makes us even poorer. It makes it like, I know you don't have kids, Taylor, but go shopping with $200 for clothes, for kids, I mean, it goes nowhere. And that's the thing, too. Like, I have four kids. We have one foster baby. You know, we, we're not. We spend a lot more money than we would ever get from the government for fostering. But these kids, I mean, like, every six months they need a new pair of shoes. So I fully understand how hard it is. I get it. It's a struggle, and they're making it harder. But that's the point. The, the point that's hard to get across to people is all this government spending is just driving up inflation and making it harder for us to be able to purchase these things. And that's not a, that's not a, like, an economic, like, big brain, you know, sidebar conversation. No, this is real. Like, it's real. They are reducing the value of our dollar. Every single dollar they put into the debt. When they print more money that doesn't, isn't backed by anything. It makes your dollar worth less and you're not making any more money. Real wage growth compared to inflation is, is a joke. I mean, nobody's making minimum wage. Yeah. I mean, 15 an hour, that's a joke. When I graduated college, I made 16 an hour and I was tickled pink. That's a joke. You can't live on 15 an hour. And that's, that's what we've come to. And it's not just about it. This is the problem is pointing everybody except for yourself, right? And this is the problem. When families aren't forced to make these hard decisions. There's a lot of families, including mine. I mean, full disclosure, people are buying things they shouldn't be buying because they don't have those real world market incentives to do so. It's, it's. We're in a real tough place, Taylor. And it's, we're getting off into a different conversation. But every little bit that we get from the federal government as a state of West Virginia, it's real hard for a politician to turn down federal money and back to the family resource center in, in work county. One thing she, I said, that's, that's one of the reasons I, I think it's a little bit dangerous to, you know, take some of this state money. And she said, absolutely. She said, you know, I'm a fiscal conservative myself. She said, I absolutely hate taking state money, but it would be really irresponsible of me to have these needs in my county and the state's offering me money for me not to take it. And I agree. I mean, she's right. I mean, she's like, the money's gonna get spent. It's gonna, if it's not gonna go to me, it's gonna go somewhere else. And I have families that could use that money. What was she gonna do? So it's, it's a thing where you're creating this really sad, dependent circle where people, you know, and, and, you know, we've said this before, and I hate to say it because I don't want anybody to, to leave West Virginia. I mean, it's a great place to live and raise kids, but if you can't afford to live here without government assistance, maybe it's time to look somewhere else and, and that's something that we don't live in a real economy. That's the problem is, is West Virginia, the, the, these people that are bragging about record revenue, Governor Morrissey, bragging about all the business growth, bragging about everything they've done. It's all on the back of states like California and New York. They're the ones paying our bills. We're not, I mean they're bragging about $300 million surplus when we're getting 71% of our, our budget from the federal government.

[B]

Yeah. And I, you know, I think the important thing to ty is again, you know, emphasizing the fact that while we're promoting or making the stand, it's not because we don't have heart. Obviously you are a foster parent. You put your blood, sweat and tears in your livelihood to helping. I've dedicated countless hours and probably years of my life to Shriners and being an organization that helps families and injured and deformed kids at no cost to them. I fully believe in helping one another. And it's important to, I think, emphasize that because obviously it's easy to paint us by saying, oh, you want to cut, snap or tan if you're cold hearted. But I think the important thing is to note is, you know, we've taken a step back. We've looked at the bigger picture here and the country can't, in the state can't keep going this route. We can't keep saying yes to every program just because it might help somebody, you know, get to a tough spell. Because unfortunately, as you were mentioning, the $40 trillion of debt, the inflationary costs of living and what it's doing to the economy, slowly people don't realize that it's boiling the frog of our economy and our way of life. Bad things are going to happen and we're just trying to redirect the ship back. And I'm saying all this to get back to a point of the social pressure, something unfortunately, as cruel as it sounds, as terrible as it sounds, we have to get back to. I was talking with a lady the other night about the issue with the cost of health care and insurance and everything. We had it so much better in terms of cost back when we had mutual aid societies and people belong could get health insurance and see a doctor regularly for like pennies on the dollar. But then I got corrupted by government intervention in the process. So part of that aspect in a similar vein was to be a part of those mutual aid societies and get that great healthcare and get that great insurance. You had to live upstanding lives. You couldn't go out and be boozing it up every night or doing, you know, recreational drugs or, you know, ballooning yourself to £400. Because if you did and you were removed from that program, there was social pressure, a part of it. That one made you to be healthier but also kept you in the price pool. So whether it's harsh or not, whether you don't like it or not, those social pressures are a fantastic tool to make things better. And I, you know, people talk about addiction to drugs and everything else. The only substance that we've actually reduced the use of over the past 40, 50 years is cigarettes. And we've done it almost entirely by social pressure. Yeah. Not by throwing people in, not by throwing people in a cage for smoking a cigarette, not by outlawing it entirely or anything along those lines. But, you know, like yuck stickers and all the ad campaigns and stuff. Now granted, some of those were government funded. I wouldn't necessarily support that. But a social pressure campaign against, against smoking. And it can be effective. And we can do the same thing. We can by backfilling our dependency on these programs, these government programs with opening up the ability of churches, charities and nonprofits to step in and contribute. And also we talked about this and Ty, you said it to your blue in the fates. I'm sure all of this is a socioeconomic issue. If people had better jobs, more money in their pockets, and we wouldn't have the dependencies on these programs on drugs and all the rest. So again, our approach is we want to improve the economy by getting government out of the way for businesses to grow, come in and grow the economy. That is part of the problem. They don't need as much assistance, but people that still do, for whatever reason, medical reasons or what have you, then charity searches and nonprofits can step in and be a more accountable, more efficient, more effective response than snap, tanf, whatever it is. Because unfortunately, as we're seeing, those things can go away in an instant and it can dry and it can become political footballs that won't be around when you're expecting them. Whereas churches, charities and nonprofits can be.

[A]

Yep. And that's the, you know, it always seems to be the, the stuff that their campaign donations don't come from. It's always the, and that's the stereotype that seems, does seem to be true is it's always the food stamps, isn't it? It's always the welfare, it's always the Medicaid that we all need to cut first. And that's the thing, you know, we've said on here, you know, that's the last thing that we would cut. But if you're going to cut it, like you said, Taylor, like doing it a month before school, like, that's some Scrooge level grossness. Like, what is wrong with you? Like, hey, next year we're not doing this. Okay, well, I guess we'll plan ahead. That sucks every bit. But to do it, like, are you trying to look like a super villain? Like, what, what are you doing?

[B]

So, yeah, or the very, or the very least, I come, come in and say, okay, for fiscal year, you know, 26, it's going to be $200. Fiscal year 27, 175, fiscal year 28, 150, start parsing it back.

[A]

Right.

[B]

Like those are approaches that, you know, as libertarians we can get behind. Because I don't, I can't think of any other libertarians that I know that would snap cut, no pun intended, any program that people are that dependent on, I think it's heartless to kind of envision that it's more likely that's going to happen because something happens within the government. Right. Like I said, the bill doesn't get passed or it becomes a political chess piece. But in the meantime, we can wean people off by decreasing that in case. And if it does ever sunset, then folks are ready. They know that it's not there. They know they can't rely it on anymore.

[A]

Yeah. So speaking of socialism, Taylor, we're seeing some, the, the Democrat Socialists of America. They're growing in influence and they're winning races. We saw the mayor, I don't know his first name, Mondami, win the governor's race in New York City. Zordon. Zordon.

[B]

He's like some Master of the universe villain or whatever.

[A]

Yeah. So he, he won the governor's race there in New York and he's mayor

[B]

of New York City.

[A]

Yeah, Mayor of New York City. Sorry, not the governor's race. So he is just basically straight up communist. He won't say that, but he pretty much is. And you know, some of the stuff that he said he was going to do, it's been kind of. He's not done a whole lot. He's not been in office for really that long, relatively. But I think some of the stuff like he said he was going to make the buses free and they raised the bus fare. And you know, I think some of the realities of actually governing are coming up. And also every Politician promises things that they don't do. So yeah, that's part of it. But one thing they're unveiling is, is a campaign promise to have government run grocery stores. And I guess they're actually going through with it. They, they did a whole press conference on these grocery stores. And I guess what they're going to do is they're going to stock these grocery stores and base their prices on, you know, monthly change their prices and base it on a 30% lower rate than groceries than private grocery stores. And the idea is that, you know, low income people are going to be able to get groceries for cheaper, but it's not just going to be for low income people, it's going to be for anybody in the city. And I guess they're proposing doing kind of like a library card kind of thing where you have to sign up for it. I'm sure you have to meet some kind of qualifications and then you can shop. And I'm sure there's going to be.

[B]

You have to show a photo id.

[A]

Yeah, Weird, huh? You're gonna have to show, I don't

[B]

know, the dm, but it would be,

[A]

I wouldn't be surprised, that grocery store kind of library card. And I'm sure there's going to be rationing that you can only buy so much so that you're not buying a bunch of, you know, bananas at 30% cheaper and then go resell them in the, in Harlem or wherever. So that, that's what they're doing in, in, you know, all the conservatives and libertarians are basically just licking their chops, just waiting for it to be a complete nutter failure, which, you know, who knows, I think it's going to be as well, it might be more successful than we think just because it's very limited right now and they're opening up in some, you know, very limited places where there's already not very many grocery stores. So, you know, it might just be a thing where, you know, it does provide a grocery store, but it's just going to be the government spending a lot of money, which is no different than anything else. But. So you fill me in on this. I guess there was a socialist that won in Michigan.

[B]

Yeah. And I'm blanking on his name, but he was a doctor of some sort. I forget what kind of doctor he was. But running under the Democrat socialist banner obviously backed and had AOC and Bernie Sanders out stomping for him like Mondame did. And it was for the Michigan Senate seat. He was up as a Primary. So nothing has been settled yet. But it was the Democratic primary that took place last night and he was going up against a sitting House of House of Representatives member, more moderate, I mean, still in our opinion, very far left, but relatively moderate Democrat lady. And I'm like her name as well, because their names aren't important. But the important thing was that she had the other side of the DNC out, like Chuck Schumer, something for her, and she ended up losing by one point. Now, the interesting thing that comes out from this is quote, unquote, chasm or chism or whatever word is in the, in the Democratic Party. And you know, where is the future of the DNC moving? As folks like AOC and Mandami and this individual, this DSA member who won the Democratic primary, where does that go? Does, is, you know, is it a flash in the pan and does it do anything? It was interesting. Obviously this is speculative polling, but the percentages of both this, the DSA winner of the primary up against the Republican, he was supposed he was expected to lose by like 4 or 5 percentage points to the Republican, whereas the more conservative, moderate, I guess not conservative, more moderate Democrat that he beat out was to tie or beat the Republican by 1 percentage point. So, you know, there's this, you know, gamesmanship that a lot of Republicans, like you were saying, are kind of licking their shots like, oh, well, great, we have a better chance of beating the Democratic socialists than we did the more modern it. We'll see if that's actually the case. We know for a fact in previous election cycles that both the Republicans and Democrats made these kind of bets where they would go out and they would behind the scenes, fund through PAC money, their more extreme primary candidate in the other party so that they thought they had a better chance of beating out the extreme Republican or the extreme Democrat. We know that that didn't work out every single time. In fact, I think it was like a 50, 50 split where that was kind of witnessed or examined, but we'll see. You know, I think obviously this is only happening in the bigger cities where the Democrats have extreme strongholds like deep blue city races like the mayor of New York and the house seats like AOCs. I don't know that it carries over in any larger races. I don't know that AOC, if she runs for states or for U.S. senate, would she be able to beat out the Democratic incumbent there? I'm not sure. Obviously, talking about running for president, what does that look like? It's going to be interesting as you Were already looking ahead to 2028 and the presidential races. I don't know. It's popular. You know, the old tough times breed tough men. Tough men breed easy times. Easy times breed soft men. Soft men breed harder times. I think we're in one of those cycles where we've gotten. It's been very easy and for all the other reasons we talked about with monetary policy and the rest, that people are just expecting government to provide so much now that these socialistic ideas, a way of running a country and a government, are gaining far too much traction than what we'd like to see. I just don't know how widespread it is at this moment, but it's obviously winning in some places, like we're seeing in New York City and now in Michigan.

[A]

Yeah, I think you're seeing a frustration of the voter base of, you know, they're seeing. Everything that we've been talking about here earlier on the podcast is the, Their, their money's not going as far as it could. They're not seeing any results from their current representation, and the economy's not working for them. And these people are offering stuff and, you know, they're like, they're either buying the, the, the entire ideology or they're basically saying, well, what. What the hell do we have to lose? So I think that was kind of ironically, that's what one President Trump, the, The presidency the first time and to a lesser extent the second time is basically, what do we have to lose here? I mean, we might as well give it a try. But the, the principles are, you know, it's not new. That's the problem is when you have an education system where people aren't learning this stuff. You know, like, I didn't, I was, you know, pretty. I don't wouldn't say I was a socialist, but, you know, I believed a lot of these principles when I was younger and, you know, to the point of back to the grocery stores. Like the idea that this, you know, you're going to have a grocery store, even if there isn't one there now, but let's say that there's a grocery store there or a bodega or whatever, you know, corner store, and they're selling groceries, you know, they're undercutting them. So basically they're not going to be able to compete, so their prices are going to have to go down and they're, they're not the government, so they don't have an endless supply of money, so they're going to go out of business. So eventually that's what you're going to do if this increases. You're going to have a complete, you know, takeover of the, the grocery store market by the government. And that, you know, whether he wants to call himself that or not, that's communism. That's like a tech. Like, that's not like hyperbole like we sometimes do. That's textbook communism.

[B]

And so did you see Bill Maher's monologue about this?

[A]

Yeah, yeah, I did. And, you know, I mean, that's basically what he said.

[B]

He's like, they're, they're basically stealing lines from the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital and other things by Karl Marx. And they're like, sneaking it into their speeches. And they're like, you know, maybe not sneaking it, but they're putting in their speeches, they're putting it in their platforms. And it's like, no, this is literally communism. You can call it a dsa, you can call it whatever way you want to spin it, but this is communism.

[A]

But, you know, screw Bill Maher. But the, the, the problem with him and people like that suddenly, you know, being, you know, oh, well, this isn't what we want. You know, we're moderates. Nah, dude, everything you've been espousing for 30 years, this is what it leads to. This is what happens. You've. You've helped participate in, you know, supporting people like Obama who are spending and spending and spending and spending and spending and creating all these programs and, and destroying our economy. And this is the end result is this is why you had, you know, such a, you know, fervent following for, for Hitler. Let's, let's say that, you know, let's bring that word in. You know, that's what happened. I mean, we had, they had an economic disaster, and Hitler, you know, got the, the ear. And that's what everybody said about Trump. Right? You know, people are desperate, so they go to the mega Hitler, the Hitler, the Nazi figure. Well, that is what happened. That's what happened in Japan. These, all, all these, these economic drivers are, you know, you know, festering grounds for these, These ideas that have been proven to be wrong over and over again. Communism doesn't work. It's not. It's been tried. There is no. Oh, well, that wasn't real communism. No, there is no real communism to, you know, just to be fair, there is no real capitalism either. There's none of these systems work with people. People are flawed. The point is, the less government you have, and if we were going to say, hey, no, no, No, I don't think that people have the answer for governing and running an economy. Capitalism can work and it has worked for very short periods of time when we actually let the capitalist system work. That's the problem. We don't have capitalism. This isn't late stage capitalism. You can call it whatever you want, but it's not capitalism. Capitalism is very simple, you know, concept to understand. Nothing about the way our economy has been running for probably a hundred years has anything to do with capitalism. And so.

[B]

100 years.

[A]

Yeah. And that's the problem is you, you can say, well, it's capitalism versus Communism. Capitalism versus socialism. Well, in no paradigm in this world is that, is that, I mean, China, China's what, Communist China. Right. They're probably more capitalist right now than we are. So where's the logic there? Their successes in world economy has been because they are letting capitalist, you know, principles run in their markets there. So that's the, that's the thing. So what are we doing? The communists are capitalists and the capitalists are communists. That's what we're doing. Just full, like uno, reverse. And so the Zora Mandani who's, you know, has, no, never done anything in his life. I mean, you read it like every college kid. You read a book and you think you know everything and then you, you know, when you do go out and get a real job, the real world, real world hits you and you realize that everything's a little bit more complicated than you thought it was. Well, eventually the world and it, and then we, you know, we. I'm, I'm open to the very slim chance that it's a huge success, but the real world's going to hit him in the face. And, and you know, a lot of people are saying the positive aspect of this is we're going to get to see a real world example of how horrible these ideas are. But I mean, at what cost and to, to who? I mean, New York is going to, you know, face the consequences of this and they, they shouldn't have to. So, yeah, luckily, I mean, I don't know. I don't know if it's worse here or not. I mean, that's the, that's the funny thing, Taylor, is you can say we're not a communist state and we're pretty red. But I mean, New York's giving us more money than we're giving them. So I mean, who's the, who's the judge?

[B]

Yeah, no, I, I think it's going to be interesting again, to your previous point, no matter what happens, the response by the hardcore radicals in that party, or whatever you want to call them group will say, oh well, it's not true socialism, it's not true communism. And then you didn't get to actually fully implement. It's a perpetual tangent line, never actually approaching what they actually want to do. And they'll blame their failures on that. So we'll see. But what is happening is you're seeing that his tax policies and the like are driving people out of those cities, out of those states, and they're going down to places like Tennessee and Florida and Texas, places that have lower if no income tax, have better free market systems for operating a business or just being a human being. The question is, and I don't know, I haven't tracked and watches. I know from anecdotal conversations when I'm traveling to those places, you hear about complaining about the liberals moving in here and voting like they used to live. I don't know how much that's actually happening, but that's obviously the concern is that when those people move out, they're like, oh well, we'll just start our mini slide to socialism back down here and more free Florida, more free Texas and all the rest. Because unfortunately, like you said, or I think maybe it was me mentioned earlier, most don't realize the long stream implications of these things when they say, oh well, we really just want to help the needy kids who need clothes or we really want to help this homeless person who needs a place to live or, or this needs medicine or whatever it is. And the government is their chosen venue or medium of delivering that. Well, that comes at large downstream costs. And we, we've seen it played out. As you mentioned earlier, the war on poverty has been being lost for the past 70 years, so they don't realize that. They think again. Hamlin's razor. It's not stupidity. It's mostly oftentimes just poorly placed trust in a solution. But it does lead to the same place. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The road to economic demise is paved with good intentions.

[A]

Yep, yep, yep, yep, yep. All right, well, unless you got anything else, I guess we'll wrap this up a little bit early. It's a good place to stop.

[B]

No, I think that's a good place to stop.

[A]

Yeah. So thanks for listening. Share the Share the podcast. Everybody, you know, support our campaigns if you feel so inclined. I've had a few generous donations here recently and I appreciate it. Every dime will go to the campaign and I'm going to try to do as much locally as possible. So far, I've been able to buy probably three quarters of the stuff I've got for my campaign locally. So, yeah, that's. That's pretty cool. And yeah, just stay tuned and we'll try to get these podcasts out a little bit more frequently. But until next time, don't hurt people and don't take their stuff.