a former senior advisor to president
george w bush and a fox
business contributor so carl on monday
the administration itself says it
wouldn't be legal to do what it appears
to most people
that they have just done and by the way
the supreme court did weigh in on all
this in in the summertime they said this
policy the
the eviction moratorium could not be
continued and i'm quoting the supreme
court now
five to four decision without clear and
specific congressional authorization via
new
legislation that is it wasn't enough for
the white house to
to extend it or to have a new policy
like this it had to be done by congress
yeah look justice roberts and justice
kavanaugh were among the five and they
made it clear in a an
opinion written by justice cavanaugh
that they were only siding with the five
against the four
because it was going to end on july 31st
and of course now you know it didn't i
got to tell you
i don't know if you saw the wall street
journal editorial today but they had
they talked about who this is affecting
the group of new york landlords
one person relies upon the income from
the rent apartment that they have
in order to make in order to live on and
24
720 in unpaid rent payments means
they've had to ask for
friends to loan them or give them money
there's also a single woman living with
her fiance
they broke up she's essentially homeless
because while she owns a rental
apartment
she can't move into it because it has
non-paying holdover tenants
so what's she supposed to do and and
i've got to tell you there's a bigger
story here
whiteboard time if you've got it okay go
ahead think about this
trump puts this uh this eviction ban in
in
september of last year and then in
december passes 25 billion dollars in
assistance to people who can't pay their
rent biden comes in in january and the
cdc
extends the eviction ban and it extends
it a second time
biden then asks in march for another
21.5 billion dollars
extends the ban through the end of july
and appoints gene
sperling as the relief czar the coveted
relief czar
and then on 6 29 the supreme court says
you don't have any authority to do this
without approval from congress and and
your reporter's right
3 billion out of the 46.5 billion
dollars to spend
so what's gene sperling doing between
march 15th when he's appointed
and and particularly after january june
29th when the supreme court says
you have no authority to do this and
we're not going to renew it when it runs
out on july 31. he was looking for these
people
he was looking for that little legal
pass that allowed them to
do what they did until i know that's
that's their excuse
but let's get to the bottom let's get to
the bottom line here which is
simply that the radical dems the
socialist wing of the party
uh want free housing for everybody as
long as possible
but there are enough moderate democrats
who have voted against that
that they didn't want to put it to a
vote in congress and that's why they
look to the white house
right bingo and the white house caved
the white house this was a
white house should have said they folded
they folded like a cheap suit
and by doing so they failed uphold their
their responsibility
to support the constitution of the
united states the supreme court had
signaled to them
so clearly on june 29th this is
unconstitutional
don't expect us to support you any
longer than july 31st carl there is
another issue
on which the question is have certain
republicans
folded in the senate and of course this
deals with the infrastructure bill
i want to play for your sound bite of
newt gingrich what he said
about republicans who plan to vote for
the infrastructure bill rotate
they got suckered on this it's the wrong
thing to do
they ought to rethink it there'll be
more than enough reason to vote against
this bill
when they actually see the bill remember
they haven't seen
the written language they don't know
what they're for
and therefore there are plenty of
opportunities here for them to decide
you know that was a mistake
i don't think i can go along with it and
what what newt said is pretty similar to
to what your friends at the wall street
journal editorial board said in a piece
that they did called a not so grand
infrastructure deal
do you agree were the moderate
republicans or are they being suckered
by voting for this infrastructure bill
no you can't have it both ways
let's wait and see what's in the bill
and read it and i i think
it's going to happen david david david
let me finish
it i believe that it is important for
the republicans to be for something and
it strengthens our hand
to be in favor of a bipartisan
infrastructure bill that i think the
house is never going to accept
but allows us to say we were for roads
and bridges and we wanted to pay for it
and we wanted to stop
up all that unspent covered money and
spend it on roads and bridges and
airports
and ports and and waterways rather than
putting it into a bunch of new welfare
benefits
and and i'm i think that's true we still
don't know
what's
they can change it if they change it
then vote it down but we do
well let's be clear about something 550
billion
so this is new spending but the other
600 billion dollars is a reauthorization
the transportation bill which has
been in in the process for the last year
and a half and we know virtually every
single
award that's in that part of the bill
and that's 600 billion
out of the bill let's see what the other
550 is like all right
you know great minds don't always think
alike i mean i i'm wrong with the
editorial page and newt gingrich on this
one but well
if it faired us to the editorial page
they said let's wait and see let's see
no no the final word from the editorial
was
democrats will get gop signatures on
much of their spending and pass
most of the rest of their agenda anyway
sorry if we exactly here
sorry if we don't cheer and sorry if i
don't cheer either
all right we do we respectfully disagree
we respectfully disagree as we
as we sometimes do good to see you carl
thank you very much