mp got elected and he took office. So the Democrats just very quickly distributed 93 billion. Huh. I wonder where this story will go. Ninety-three billion dollars. Was it audited or was it unaudited? Seems to have been unaudited. Unaudited. So there was a 93 billion pile of money. It was unaudited. How could I ever predict what would happen here?

Oh, I've got an idea. Is a lot of it missing? Well, not all of it. Scott, don't be so cynical. It's not all missing. They did manage to claw back 24 billion. So only 69 billion left to be recovered. Sixty-nine billion. You know, I don't know if that means that a few people got a lot of billions or did they just sort of say, "All right, who's a Democrat? You're a Democrat. Here's $1,000." How do you even steal 69 billion? That would take a lot of work.

In other news, you know, we always talk about repeat offenders with crime. The City Journal is reminding us, I don't know if these numbers are right or real. They don't even look real, but allegedly in New York City, 327 people account for one third of all shoplifting arrests. Three hundred twenty-seven. What does that imply for how many committed the crimes? This is just the arrests. I mean, you have to try pretty hard to get arrested for shoplifting these days. And those 327 people have allegedly been arrested 6,000 times.

And then in Oakland, there allegedly 400 people were responsible for the majority of homicides. Wait, what? There are 400 people in Oakland who are responsible for the majority of the homicides. The majority. I was frightened to death that there are 400 murderers in the town next to me. Four hundred murderers. And apparently they're murdering more than one person. I don't know the average murder per murderer, but it looks like they're pretty busy.

You know, I was thinking of becoming a criminal early in my career and then I thought, "Oh, am I going to be one of those lazy criminals who just does a crime or two and then retires or goes to jail, or am I going to be one of these industrious serial criminals who robs a thousand banks?" And I thought, "Well, I don't want to be a lazy criminal. I'll be one of these repeat offenders." Anyway, I'd like to know how many murders apiece the murderers are doing.

All right. I remember in California when we had this three strikes law. So when it was first being contemplated and I would be reading the news and I wasn't really that involved with any politics at all. I wasn't really following politics in any way and certainly not in the state. I wasn't following any state politics. And then I heard people arguing that if you locked up all the repeat offenders after their third offense, it wouldn't make any difference to the crime rate. And I thought to myself, wait, what? If you put in jail the people who are doing the crimes, that will not reduce the crime. Can you explain how that doesn't work?

And the only way that you could explain how locking up the repeat offenders doesn't work is if the people who were not planning to do more crimes compensated by saying, "Whoa, it looks like they locked up the repeat offenders. I'm going to have to increase my crime per person to compensate for the locked up repeat offenders." Otherwise, there isn't really any possible way that locking up the people doing the crimes ends up with the same amount of crime. That's not really possible.

And here again, I feel like we devolve into that just ridiculousness, the ridiculousness of imagining that wouldn't work. It would work. It would just be really bad for the people getting locked up. They wouldn't like it at all. Or maybe they would. I don't know. I can't get in the mind of a serial criminal.

Well, speaking of bad behavior, there is a hilarious story of a VP at Campbell's Soup company. And for some reason, there was now an ex-employee who recorded the VP over lunch. And here are some of the things that the VP of Campbell's Soup, now this is the VP of it I think, so it wasn't the marketing guy, but the VP was caught on audio, I guess, recorded as saying, and I quote, "We have food for poor people." Meaning that their product is for poor people. He goes, "Who buys our... I don't buy Campbell's products barely anymore. It's not healthy now that I know what's in it." Remember, this is a VP at Campbell's Soup. "It's not healthy now that I know what's in it." He goes, "Bioengineered meat. I don't want to eat a piece of chicken that came from a 3D printer." That's the actual VP of Campbell's Soup. Bioengineered meat. I don't want to eat a piece of chicken that came from a 3D printer.

Well, maybe it's just me, but I'd like to offer that guy a job. I would love to have an executive who was that honest. All right. Apparently this is all, there's some lawsuit by a former employee, but that's pretty bad. I didn't know you could just record people over lunch. Kind of depends what state you're in, doesn't it? In my state, you couldn't do that. That would be illegal.

All right. So we'll see where that goes. That will soon be a Dilbert comic, you know. Yeah, it will be. Dilbert comic about one of Dilbert's executives being recorded talking honestly about the products. Yeah, that's coming. That's coming.

Well, I saw just before I went live, Eric Daugherty was posting about this that Trump is going to introduce maybe tomorrow some kind of healthcare price cuts act. What do you think that'll be about? I don't know the details, but a few other things being mentioned. It would halt Obamacare premium spikes. I don't know how. And the plan reportedly includes some kind of deposit mechanism, some kind of health savings account. Is that a good idea? I don't know. It seems like something that might work in the long run, but you know, in year one, you'd have to get those accounts up. It would also end the premium hikes and zero premium subsidies and stop massive fraud known as quote ghost beneficiaries. Would it? Well, I don't know. That's a big claim.

And Trump recently said, "I'm calling today for insurance companies not to be paid, but for this massive amount of money to be paid directly to the people so they can buy their own healthcare." Does anybody understand what that means? Because I don't. I have no idea what it means to say you're going to pay the people directly instead of the insurance companies. Wouldn't that be the same as single payer insurance? What does that mean? If you ignored the insurance companies and you simply had, I don't know, the government, who is it who's paying? I guess it would be the government paying the people. I don't know.

So I've got lots and lots of questions. I don't know who is going to take the lead on this program, but I don't think that would make you self-insured, right? That would make you self-insured in a way, but you'd still need something like the government backstopping you. Otherwise, it's not really health insurance. It's not insurance. If you're insuring yourself, that's not very much insurance. Private health costs or what? Do some of you actually understand this? I'll try to catch up on it today because I don't have an opinion on any of it yet because it's a little too hard to figure out how it all fits together. But if the Trump administration puts