← Tom Bilyeu's Impact Theory
Tom Bilyeu's Impact Theory
SAVE ACT Exposed: The Secret Reason 84% of Americans are Being Ignored. | Tom's Deepdive
00:29:11
Loading summary
Transcript10 lines
- [00:00]
A
If you work in university maintenance, Grainger considers you an MVP because your playbook ensures your arena is always ready for tip off. And Grainger is your trusted partner, offering the products you need all in one place, from H Vac and plumbing supplies to lighting and more. And all delivered with plenty of time left on the clock so your team always gets the win. Call 1-800-GRAINGER visit grainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.
- [00:30]
B
When you manage procurement for multiple facilities, every order matters, but when it's for a hospital system, they matter even more. Grainger gets it and knows there's no time for managing multiple suppliers and no room for shipping delays. That's why Grainger offers millions of products in fast, dependable delivery so you can keep your facility stocked, safe and running smoothly. Call 1-800-GRAINGER Click grainger.com or just stop by Granger for the ones who get it done
- [01:00]
C
of the 47 nations in Europe, all 47 require government issued photo ID to vote. India, a country where 63% of the population live in rural areas and where hundreds of millions of people live on less than $2 a day, photo ID is still required to vote. Even in Mexico. Biometric voter ID with a photo, fingerprint and hologram have been required since 1992. And right now in the United States of America, you need a government issued ID to buy a beer, board a plane, open a bank account, pick up a prescription, buy cold medicine, adopt a stray cat and and rent a library book. In New York, you can't even buy whipped cream without a license. And in California, you can't buy spray paint without one. But in that same state and many others, you can walk into a polling booth, simply say a name, no ID required, and cast a vote that will decide how trillions of dollars get spent. Voter ID isn't about race or even immigration. It's about something else entirely, and I'm going to prove it. 84 84% of Americans Republican and Democrat support requiring an ID to vote. That is a level of bipartisan agreement that almost never exists. And yet the Senate says the bill meant to enshrine the need for voter ID is dead on arrival. What on God's green earth would make a government say no to something 84% of the voters want? That's what we're going to be discussing right now. And the answer is going to shock you, especially if you've bought into the distraction that this is all about race. Buckle up. If you merely say you want voter ID People will call you racist or say you're suppressing voters. They'll say there's no need for voter ID because no one is voting illegally. That is moronic. Game theory makes it clear that any system that can be exploited for advantage will be exploited. Don't believe me? Here are some stories pulled from a vast sea of such stories. A Florida mother hacked into 117 student accounts and cast 246 fraudulent votes so her daughter could become Drumroll please. Homecoming queen. Both of them were charged with felonies. A college student at Cal State installed keyloggers on campus computers, stole 750 students passwords, and then cast over 600 fake votes to win a student council election. He went to federal prison. At Berkeley High, a kid running for ASB president logged into 500 classmates email accounts and voted for himself hundreds of times for student government. Parents have forged birth certificates and falsified residency documents so their 12 year olds could win Little League tournaments. A man broke into an aquarium and stole a fish to win a fishing tournament. Hollywood actresses and billionaire CEOs alike bribed coaches and faked SAT scores to get their kids into college. Everyone says voter fraud won't happen, but fraud happens all the time. And and for things far more trivial than a national election. Now, I'm going to preempt the people who are going to say, well, Tom, if there was fraud, we would already see it. I'll stop that right now with the following true story. In 2013, New York City's Department of Investigation sent 63 undercover investigators to polling places to vote under the names of people who were ineligible. They were dead, moved away, or convicted felons. 61 out of the 63 succeeded. That's a 97% success rate. They didn't even try that hard. In five cases, investigators in their 20s and 30s posed as voters aged 82 to 94. One of the two who got caught was recognized by the felon's mother, who happened to be a poll worker at that location. That is our current strategy. Coincidence. Additionally, it is standard procedure for ballots cast in person to not contain any identifying information about the voter. So once a fraudulent ballot goes into the box, it is literally impossible to isolate it or trace it back. It's mixed in with every legitimate ballot and counted the same way. The bipartisan New York State Board of Elections spokesman John Conklin said it plainly. It demonstrates that voter fraud is easy to commit and not easy to find. It shows that someone with a little knowledge of where the cracks are in the system can Exploit them and we'd never know about it. And UVA law professor Michael Gilbert put the logic point precisely. The failure to observe fraud does not mean that no fraud takes place. If people commit fraud and risk prison for student council and homecoming queen and happily commit fraud by cashing the checks of dead people, what on earth makes them think people, people won't vote under someone else's name if ID is not required? So let's start with the bill itself. The SAVE act, which stands for Safeguard American Voter Eligibility. It does three things. One, it requires documented proof of citizenship to register to vote. Two, it requires a photo ID to cast a ballot. And three, it requires states to actively maintain accurate voter rolls. That's it. That's the whole bill. Prove you're a citizen, prove who you say you are, and states keep your list clean. I, for one, am fine with the fact that I have to show ID if I want to adopt a cat or check out a library book. IDs are an easy way to limit how easily a system can be abused. Take your bank account. You walk into a bank and say, I'd like to withdraw money from my account. And the teller is going to say, sure. Can I see some id? That's not oppression, that's not suppression. That's the bank protecting you. They're making sure nobody else walks in and takes your money. Now imagine a bank that said, no ID needed. Just tell us your account number and we'll hand over the cash. How long do you think it would take before someone exploited that? A week? A day? It would happen so fast no one would keep their money there. Voting is the same thing, except instead of protecting however much money you have in the bank, it's protecting your vote, which influences how trillions of dollars of taxpayer money get spent. Every fraudulent vote doesn't just add a new vote to the system, it cancels out a legitimate one. Requiring an ID is not suppression, it's the system protecting the value of your vote. The next argument you're going to hear is it's too hard for some people to get an ID. Well, let's talk about it. There are roughly 260 million adults in the United States. Available data that covers the entire adult population suggests that somewhere between 95 and 97% of Americans already have a government issued photo ID right now in their wallets because they need it for everything. You can't buy spray paint, as I said, or even whipped cream in some places without ID, but okay, fair enough. What about the other 3 to 5%? Some are admittedly so burdened by work that any new strain is going to be tough to accommodate. But roughly 3% of adults in the US are legally categorized as having an intellectual disability. With or without id, odds are very low that they're going to be able to navigate voting anyway. Not to mention only roughly 60% of people turn out to vote even in a presidential election. That leaves a vanishingly small number of people that would actually be suppressed by requiring voter id, if that was even the actual intent, which of course, it's not. And even if you assume a full 3% of adults would want to vote but be made unable to because they couldn't get an ID, it makes no sense to put 100% of legal voters at risk for their vote being watered down by fraud to pick up a largely hypothetical 3%. And if people are concerned about some of the people in this very small pool that don't already have an ID being stopped from getting an ID because they can't afford one, offer everyone a free id. It would be trivial to add a provision to the bill that requires states to provide ID free of charge. It would be trivial, but the Democrats won't even debate the bill. They're calling it Jim Crow 2.0 and promising to filibuster so that it can't even be debated or voted on. That's because this isn't about protecting the voters. It's about power and exploiting the system to get it and maintain it, and exploiting the system to do so. And remember India? A country with hundreds of millions of people in rural areas, widespread poverty, and literacy challenges that dwarf anything in the United States. They've required a photo ID since 1993. The idea that the richest, most technologically advanced nation in the history of planet Earth can't manage what India, Mexico, and all of Europe have been doing for decades. That's not a serious argument. It's a smokescreen. Which raises the real question. If this isn't actually about people being unable to get an ID, and 84% of Americans across party lines support the initiative, why is the Senate blocking it? What does someone in power gain by making sure we don't verify who's voting? Hang tight. We'll be back in just a moment.
- [10:57]
B
When you manage procurement for multiple facilities, every order matters. But when it's for a hospital system, they matter even more. Grainger gets it and knows there's no time for managing multiple suppliers and no room for shipping delays. That's why Grainger offers millions of products in fast, dependable delivery so you can keep your facility stocked, safe, and running smoothly. Call 1-800-GRAINGER click granger.com or just stop by Granger for the ones who get it done.
- [11:29]
C
All right, we're back. Let's get into it. To understand the answer, you have to understand something most people have never thought. How illegal immigrants impact the census, how the census actually works, and how dramatically it influences political power. The U.S. constitution requires a census every 10 years. That census counts every person living in the country. Not every citizen, every person. And the results of that count determine how many seats each state gets in the House of Representatives and, by extension, how many Electoral College votes each state gets in presidential elections. More people in your state means more seats. More seats means more power. And it doesn't matter whether those people can vote or not. According to the center for Immigration Studies, the presence of all immigrants, legal and illegal, and their US born minor children shifted the distribution of 26 House seats and 26 electoral college votes in the 2020 census. Of those, 17 seats were shifted by noncitizens alone, people who cannot legally vote in a federal election, but whose mere physical presence in a state increases that state's political power in Washington. There's no conspiracy theory in that. It's not even a disputed fact. It's just how the census math works. Given how much power it conveys, can you not understand why states would want to get as many bodies in their state as possible, regardless of their legal status? In May of 2024, then Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo was asked about all of this in a Senate hearing. The Commerce Department, by the way, oversees the census, so she was the right person to ask. Senator Hagerty asked, illegal aliens today are counted in the US Census, is that correct?
- [13:22]
B
Raimondo confirmed yes, as required by the Constitution.
- [13:26]
C
The senator continued, this total census population, which includes illegal aliens, is then in turn used for the allocation of congressional districts and electoral votes for each state. Is that correct? Yes, that's the Commerce Secretary of the United States confirming on the record that people in the country illegally are counted in the Census, and that count directly determines how many congressional seats and Electoral College votes each state receives. Politicians don't even try to hide this fact. In a 2021 House Foreign Affairs Committee briefing, Congresswoman Yvette Clark, a Democrat from Brooklyn, said, and I quote, I need more people in my district just for redistricting purposes. She wasn't caught on a hot mic. She said it publicly, on camera. In an official congressional proceeding, she was talking about absorbing Haitian migrants into her Brooklyn district, not because she had a plan to help them, but because more bodies in her district meant more political power for her. Now think about the incentive structure this creates. If you're a politician in a state with millions of non citizens, you have a structural reason to keep them. There's a Every non citizen in your state is padding your power in Congress and in the Electoral College regardless of whether or not they cast a vote. But it would be even better if they could cast a vote, wouldn't it? And that's exactly why Democrats have publicly stated on the record that their plan is to find a path to citizenship for all illegal immigrants. If you don't believe me, in 2022, then Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer stood in front of the U.S. capitol and said on camera, our ultimate goal is to help the Dreamers, but get a path to citizenship for all 11 million
- [15:12]
A
or however many undocumented there are.
- [15:15]
C
Here again, it's not a leaked memo or a slip on a hot mic. That's the most powerful Democrat in the Senate stating his ultimate goal on the record. Honestly, if you're a Democrat, it's a smart strategy if all you care about is staying in power. Data consistently shows that recent immigrants vote disproportionately for the party that welcomed them in and promised benefits. So if even half of the 11 million immigrants become citizens and start voting, you have permanently shifted the electoral math. Not for one election. Permanently. If you want an example of exactly how this plays out, look no further than California. In 1986, Ronald Reagan signed an amnesty agreement granting citizenship to nearly 3 million illegal immigrants. Before that amnesty, California voted Republican. In nine out of ten presidential elections after it, California has not voted Republican once, not one single time, in almost 40 years. Now, to be clear, this isn't about whether immigrants are good people. My wife is an immigrant. Like any group, most are awesome. Most of them came here for a better life, just like virtually everyone's ancestors did. This is about whether politicians are using them as pawns in a power game. And the answer? Based on their own words, their own votes, and the structural incentives that are baked into the system, the answer is obviously yes. That's why they won't even vote or debate on the SAVE Act. That's why they won't add a citizenship question to the census. That's why they call voter ID racist. The goal isn't to protect immigrants or voters. It's to protect their power. But sadly, grabbing power is a much smaller problem than what we have to discuss now. Namely, the true Cost of immigration in a system with welfare. Because that toxic combo is destroying the middle class. The federal government added $2.2 trillion in debt in a single year. Total national debt now stands at roughly $38.5 trillion. And for the first time in American history, annual interest payments alone are more than a trillion dollars. And that's nearly doubled in just three fiscal years. Let me put these numbers into perspective. The federal deficit for 2025 was roughly $1.8 trillion. And that means the government spent 1.8 trillion more than it collected in taxes. That gap is roughly 6% of GDP, which is more than 50% above our 50 year average. And it's not going to get better. The CBO projects deficits will exceed $2 trillion a year for the next decade. Federal debt held by the public has hit 100% of GDP and is on pace to blow past the all time record of 100 set in 1946, right after we had just finished fighting a world war. So how did we get here? The same way every empire before us got here. Politicians discovered that the easiest way to win elections is to promise people free things. Programs, benefits, safety nets, tax cuts, stimulus checks. The problem is they can never collect enough taxes to pay for all of it, so they borrow the difference. And to be clear, this is not a partisan problem. Republicans cut taxes without cutting spending. Democrats increase spending without increasing taxes enough to cover it. The result is the same on either side. The gap between what the government takes in and what it spends just keeps growing year after year, regardless of who is in power. So don't think for a second that you're on the good side when we have got to solve this problem. Now. A crazy data point that you have to take into consideration when you're thinking through the problem of immigration. Get ready for this. It actually lowers federal deficits. Sort of. Let me explain. The Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan agency that does the math for Congress, estimates that the recent surge in immigration could actually reduce federal deficits by about 900 billion over the next 10 years. The reason? Immigrants pay taxes. Income taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes. And at the federal level, they continue to contribute more in revenue than they cost in benefits. Even if they're using fake Social Security numbers, they're still paying. But here's what that number doesn't capture. At the state level and local level, the same CBO found the exact opposite. Immigration imposed a net cost of billions of dollars on a year because states bear the direct costs of education, housing, emergency services, shelter, and the like. The federal Government gets the tax revenue, sure, but your city gets the bill. Now here's the trillion dollar Literally. If immigration lowers deficits in real life and not just in statistics, could we use immigration to solve our catastrophic debt problem? Well, over the Biden presidency, we ended up running a natural experiment and unfortunately our deficits have soared as we've imported an unprecedented number of immigrants. That doesn't mean that immigration has caused our debt crisis. I want to be very clear about that. But it does mean it's not going to solve it. The idea of importing infinite immigrants to flip a fiscal deficit into a surplus sounds very appealing if you just extrapolate from the average positive projected fiscal effects that appear in some studies. But it ignores real world constraints like diminishing economic returns, infrastructure limits, values collisions which nobody wants to talk about. Overall social integration challenges and the this one's rough the low versus high skill composition of who immigrates, which matters more than anything else. While immigration can boost GDP and can reduce federal deficits in the short term, the benefits aren't linear or unlimited. Pumping in endless numbers of immigrants invariably eventually creates net costs, backlash and social instability. Just look at history. Immigration expands the labor supply, which grows the economy by filling jobs, increasing productivity and raising overall output. However, beyond a certain point, it saturates markets and especially for low skilled work, leading to sharper wage drops higher unemployment for natives, particularly those without high school diplomas, and reduces pressure for businesses to raise wages or invest in productivity enhancing tech or training. In essence, economies aren't infinitely elastic. Adding workers does boost supply, but if demand, jobs and capital doesn't keep pace, you get inefficiencies like underemployment or black market labor, which we see both of right now. According to both the Manhattan Institute and National affairs, the skill level of the immigrant population matters a great deal in terms of whether they'll be an economic contributor or a net cost to the system. High skilled immigrants, for example, college educated, generate lifetime surpluses, but low skilled ones often create net drains that can be hundreds of thousands of dollars per person over 30 years. This is due to higher use of education, health and welfare programs, costs that grow exponentially as more people immigrate. Mass migration flows tend to skew low skilled as global migration pressures come from poorer regions, amplifying the burdens. We also have to confront the realities of incentives. When the richest country in the world opens its borders and promises access to infrastructure like education, health services and welfare programs, you are going to understandably attract low skilled workers who are fleeing desperate situations and will over time draw more out of the system than they contribute. And none of that is even to mention what is likely the most damaging impact of mass immigration. The social, cultural and political limits of integrating a large number of people into a society too quickly. Rapid influxes of low skill migrants over time drains resources, strains social cohesion, leads to cultural clashes, reduced trust and political backlash. We see it over and over in history, historical waves. For example, here in the US in the 19th century, they succeeded partly because there were few if any social programs to draw from. So you just weren't attracting people that just wanted something on the dole. And there were built in pauses that allowed for cultural assimilation. With our current state of unbearable debt, intolerable inequality, taxation through inflation, and already skyrocketing populism, this is a time to pause and adjust the system to focus on restabilizing our economy and society. It is not a time to create further vulnerabilities in areas like our voting system. Nor is it time to weaponize immigrants who are already being leveraged to gain political power by offering promises of mass citizenship and access to welfare programs. In the US a staggering number of people receive benefits from one social service or another. We're talking north of 50%. Some analyses show an even higher number, depending on whether you count things like federal student loans, farm subsidies, or mortgage interest deductions, as quote unquote government benefits. But sticking to just things like Medicaid, snap housing assistance, Social Security, Medicare, unemployment and the like, you've still got over 50% of Americans already receiving some kind of assistance. Our welfare state has grown absolutely massive, and importing more people with an incentive to broaden those systems even further without first balancing the budget is economic suicide for a country that is already on life support due to debt. Given all of this, if we're hell bent to use immigration as a deficit reduction strategy, fine. But it's going to require a selective immigration process that attracts skilled workers from around the world and restricts low skilled immigrants. That would almost certainly be good for the economy long term. But as discussed right now we're doing the exact opposite. We are enticing low skilled people from the most dysfunctional places on earth via a massive social safety net. And in states like California, Minnesota and New York, which bill themselves literally as sanctuaries for immigrants, lawmakers are doing their best to ensure easy access to free infrastructure such as education and healthcare, dramatically increasing the likelihood that arrivals are a net drain on finite resources. And again, if you don't believe me, just look up Some of the things that California's Governor Newsom has said about publicly. Additionally, we're doing little to nothing to maximize the number of high skilled immigrants who are the ones that would tend to be net contributors. Now, hopefully all of that explains how immigration can either be a positive or a negative, depending on how a country's systems are set up and how deficits can so quickly get out of control when things aren't set up well. But bodies, legal or otherwise, pad the census. Social safety nets attract bodies. Amnesty paths to citizenship and yes, fraud create votes. And as California demonstrates, when you attract people with free stuff, those people tend to vote for more free stuff. Politicians refuse to pass voter ID laws because they want a system that can be exploited so they can leverage it to gain and retain power through, among other things, bad immigration policy. It's not a conspiracy. It's a chain of incentives embedded in a system that politicians are trying to keep easy to exploit. And as game theory and reality make abundantly clear, any system that can be exploited will be exploited. The tragic irony of all of this is that even the well intentioned people who are most passionate about equality, the ones marching, protesting, demanding the rich pay their fair share, saying that they're a sanctuary for immigrants, they are the ones voting for the very policies that make the rich richer. Every new program funded by borrowing eventually requires money printing. And every round of money printing widens the gap they're trying to close. They're going to blame capitalism and they do. But this isn't capitalism. This is what happens when a government counterfeits its own currency and calls it policy. Every empire that has ever done what we're doing with debt and money printing has collapsed. Every single one. America is not exempt from math. So what should any of us do? First, support voter id. Not because you hate immigrants, because you understand the incentive structure that's being protected by leaving the system unsecured. Second, stop voting for free stuff. I know this one is going to be hard to get people to listen to, but there is no free There is only paid for by money printing, which is paid for by your purchasing power, which hurts the poor and middle class the most. Third, demand balanced budget. If we balance the budget, we don't need to print money. And if we want to allocate things in a balanced budget to immigrants, we can. We just can't do it with an unbalanced budget. If we stop printing money, inflation stabilizes. If inflation stabilizes, inequality begins to narrow. Everything, everything traces back to debt, money printing and politicians insatiable appetite for power. And fourth, get into assets. I wish this weren't the reality, but your government has made it impossible to save your way to prosperity. Cash is a melting ice cream cone. You need to own things that rise when money is printed. Stocks, real estate, gold, silver, bitcoin, a business, etc. Needless to say, this is not financial advice, it's just math. Remember, some people will cheat on college admissions, homecoming crowns, fishing competitions and student elections when little to nothing is on the line. Why on earth would you think they won't cheat on national elections when there's trillions of dollars and political power on the line? 84% of Americans, Republican and Democrats, support requiring an ID to vote, but the Senate won't even debate the topic. Voter ID isn't about race. It's about power. All right, that's it for today's episode. If you got value out of this, it would mean the world to me if you would go give us a five star rating. It helps more than you know. All right, thank you and until next time, my friends. Be legendary. Take care. Peace.
- [30:42]
A
If you work in university maintenance, Grainger considers you an MVP because your playbook ensures your arena is always ready for tip off. And Grainger is your trusted partner, offering the products you need all in one place. From H Vac and plumbing supplies, supplies to lighting and more. And all delivered with plenty of time left on the clock so your team always gets the win. Call 1-800-GRAINGER visit grainger.com or just stop by Granger for the ones who get it done.