Speaker 1: Do you want to be in American start floating on
Speaker 1: this MLK day on seven hundred Wow, more than that,
Speaker 1: about nine thirty five feels kind of hollow to me
Speaker 1: here in Cincinnati anyway.
Speaker 2: Maybe not the rest they came here, but here in Cinty.
Speaker 2: I'll explain why I'm momentarily first though TERRFF related stuff.
Speaker 2: Announcement just came out. Canada has cut tariffs on Chinese
Speaker 2: made electric vehicles, so kind of an end around there
Speaker 2: on the United States because the ongoing tariff war, and
Speaker 2: speaking of which, over the weekend, the President threatened tariffs
Speaker 2: on eight NATO allies unless the deal has reached for
Speaker 2: US to buy Greenland, which leaves a lot of US
Speaker 2: scratching our head. And also the United States Supreme Court
Speaker 2: last week we're expected to they never tell you what
Speaker 2: they're going to rule on when, but last week or
Speaker 2: expecting a decision maybe on whether the Trump tariffs are legal.
Speaker 2: According to the Ice Supreme Court, they have kicked the
Speaker 2: can down the least till next time. We'll find out.
Speaker 2: It could be weeks away at this point, we're not sure.
Speaker 2: But all this comes together as costs continue to just
Speaker 2: be stubborn with inflation and everything else in tariff's a
Speaker 2: part of that for sure. On that is Kyle Moran,
Speaker 2: our friend from Young Voices, welcome back, How you been.
Speaker 3: I'm good, Thank you for having me.
Speaker 2: Yeah, appreciate it. So the big issue here as we
Speaker 2: debate tariffs and if they're effective or not, is that
Speaker 2: the President invoked the Powers Act and designed for a
Speaker 2: national security crisis like wars or terrorism or seizing assets
Speaker 2: things like that, to impose trade tarffs on China. Is
Speaker 2: this a misuse of emergency powers because that's what the
Speaker 2: High Court is going to decide here.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it basically is guaranteed to be some sort of
Speaker 3: abuse of overreach in terms of the emergency powers granted
Speaker 3: to him through that Act, because from day one when
Speaker 3: he rolled these out, he was already exempting very specific
Speaker 3: industries that are economically important because he knows the impact
Speaker 3: that tariff would have on those would be detrimental to
Speaker 3: the United States. But critically this shows that it's not
Speaker 3: based on national security. When he's exempting cowper, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors,
Speaker 3: all these other types of materials from the tariffs, then
Speaker 3: what is it What is he even tariffing a lot
Speaker 3: of it is a lot less important goods that we're importing,
Speaker 3: So therefore it's not based on national security, which he
Speaker 3: himself has sort of admitted very at various times. He
Speaker 3: has gone on record as saying it's going to be
Speaker 3: used to pay down the national debt, to do now,
Speaker 3: to do these stimulus checks as a source of revenue
Speaker 3: rather than as a national security concern.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and that is a concern too. It's just purely
Speaker 2: on a revenue standpoint. And so far we've had some
Speaker 2: indication that the conservative justices are even pushing back on this.
Speaker 2: Amy Cony Barrett and Justice Chief Justice Rod John Roberts
Speaker 2: said that the vehicle is in position of taxes on
Speaker 2: Americans and that has always been a core power of Congress.
Speaker 2: Those early indication certainly don't indicate how they're going to vote,
Speaker 2: because there's been time to I've thrown that out. They're
Speaker 2: challenging it. But that if you're looking at the tea
Speaker 2: lives here, it doesn't bode well for this.
Speaker 3: No, it doesn't, because like I was, like I said,
Speaker 3: so much of this has not even been like the
Speaker 3: oppositions criticizing the administration, but the administration undermining its own position.
Speaker 3: So it really does. It does get into some tricky
Speaker 3: legal battles for the administration to keep this standing. But
Speaker 3: I have, I do have to step back and think
Speaker 3: these powers were passed to be very limited in times
Speaker 3: of in terms of actual concerns to national security. We
Speaker 3: have reached a point where Congress has ceded so much
Speaker 3: power to the executive. The point of passing that Act
Speaker 3: in nineteen seventy seven was never to institute broad sweeping
Speaker 3: powers for the executives to just simply impose and pull
Speaker 3: off and impose more care really nilly. That was not
Speaker 3: what it was for. It's not what it is for now,
Speaker 3: and the country is not designed to be run by
Speaker 3: somebody who has essentially more and more unlimited power for
Speaker 3: four years before election.
Speaker 2: If the Supreme Court rules against these terroriffs, does that
Speaker 2: then call in the re examination of the executive order
Speaker 2: power the part of the presidency and executive I mean,
Speaker 2: we saw Biden and the autopen do it with impunity,
Speaker 2: and Trump said, well, here, hold my diet coke, watch
Speaker 2: me make a bunch of executive orders. In Congress has
Speaker 2: absolutely no They're feckless, right, I mean, you can shut
Speaker 2: the government down for forty something days over god knows what.
Speaker 2: They can't really pass any and come to conclusion other
Speaker 2: than releasing the Epstein files because it covers their asses.
Speaker 2: But does this change then how we how we maybe
Speaker 2: that the Congress actually is forced to do their job.
Speaker 3: I'm not optimistic on that. I it will limit the
Speaker 3: executive in terms of being able to do this on again,
Speaker 3: off again charade, which has reached incredible levels where it's
Speaker 3: literally back in April and May, it was every day
Speaker 3: you would open the news, new tariff and then one
Speaker 3: of those tariffs was canceled, and then the next day
Speaker 3: more tariff. So that type of stuff would be much
Speaker 3: harder for future executives. But to your point about Biden
Speaker 3: with the auto pen and all these things, Congress has
Speaker 3: essentially feeded, like I said, so much of its own
Speaker 3: power to the executive on a broad range of issues.
Speaker 3: The Supreme Court doesn't have the ability to step in
Speaker 3: and say Congress needs to do this. It can say
Speaker 3: that the President doesn't have the ability himself to do it,
Speaker 3: but it can't make Congress do its job. And certainly,
Speaker 3: as we have seeing, Congress can't make Congress do its
Speaker 3: own job. So we are in an unfortunate position there,
Speaker 3: and I'm not gone through them that will see much
Speaker 3: of an improvement.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, I'm hoping anyway, uh, Cale Moran that if
Speaker 2: the if the Supreme Court rolls against him with tariffs,
Speaker 2: which we'll get in the repercussions of that in a second,
Speaker 2: but on a bigger scale, and that is limiting executive
Speaker 2: office powers and executive branch powers. That there's a roadblock there,
Speaker 2: and the other one is going to be Venezuela at
Speaker 2: some point, I imagine you know that's going to come
Speaker 2: to some sort of fruition here, but relative to the
Speaker 2: ninety billion collected, that is another big problem there. The
Speaker 2: of course the money's coming back in, but it would
Speaker 2: there be a refund and how would that even work?
Speaker 3: That is an excellent question because this is something on
Speaker 3: this scale that's never been attempted before. So if these
Speaker 3: are stripped down, there would have to be refunds. But
Speaker 3: depending on when this actually happens, depending on if the
Speaker 3: government has spent this money. Trump is already eyeing using
Speaker 3: those funds for these two thousand dollars stimulus checks, which
Speaker 3: wouldn't even be enough to cover those by the way,
Speaker 3: but it would create a very unprecedented situation. We would
Speaker 3: have to see exactly how this plays out, But to
Speaker 3: answer your question, yes, they would have to be refunded well.
Speaker 2: And the other element here is if we have a
Speaker 2: thirty eight trillion dollar deficit, why are we handing out
Speaker 2: two thousand dollars checks which seems like it was light
Speaker 2: years ago and I was proposed, but again, nothing ever dies.
Speaker 2: I think more than that though, the idea we're going
Speaker 2: to spend seven hundred billion on buying greenland. We got
Speaker 2: the money and the count for that one.
Speaker 3: Exactly, which is part of the issue here. Again. We
Speaker 3: saw the impact back under the Biden administration incredibly big
Speaker 3: spending and money printing in twenty twenty one, which drove
Speaker 3: inflation up to nine percent, and we are still feeling
Speaker 3: the results of that. We're still feeling the impact of
Speaker 3: that for almost five years on now. So when the
Speaker 3: inflation goes up like that, it never comes down again.
Speaker 3: The inflation rate at which is increase may come down,
Speaker 3: but the prices that went up they're just there and
Speaker 3: you're stuck with that. You will never see twenty nineteen
Speaker 3: prices for a lot of goods again. And that's the
Speaker 3: unfortunate reality of the money system that we have now,
Speaker 3: where we just print more and more, and almost certainly
Speaker 3: we would have to print a considerable amount of money
Speaker 3: to make these two thousand dollars checks happen. And then
Speaker 3: on top of that, Trump hates the current Federal Reserve
Speaker 3: chairge your own Powell, who's not flallaced by any means,
Speaker 3: but he wants to replace them with somebody who's going
Speaker 3: to be even more dubbish and turn the money printers
Speaker 3: back on and just print print.
Speaker 2: As someone who is I guess more libertarian than anything,
Speaker 2: and I just dis trust government top to bottom of
Speaker 2: my team, your team. Kind of nonsense. There's an hypocrisy
Speaker 2: test here, right, So how many Republicans who absolutely celebrate
Speaker 2: the tariffs and all this and the bombing of ships
Speaker 2: off Venezuela would they be outrage of a Democratic president
Speaker 2: of this sen I mean, look at this one. We
Speaker 2: talk about the Affordable Care Act, which is they're right,
Speaker 2: it's subsidy. You're taking taxpayer money to give other people
Speaker 2: a break on their healthcare. Healthcare is to damn expensive.
Speaker 2: Let's do something the lower the cost of healthcare, as
Speaker 2: opposed to just giving aid to people and redistributing wealth.
Speaker 2: It doesn't work. It's too expensive, it's not a four.
Speaker 2: It doesn't make it affordable, it makes it less affordable.
Speaker 2: Subsidy does using that same logic, And I'm right about that.
Speaker 2: Republicans should be talking about what we're doing here with
Speaker 2: Trump and be equally outraged that now we're going to
Speaker 2: take money that could go pay off the deficit and
Speaker 2: we're going to give people subsidies.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and to your point, the healthcare situation is something
Speaker 3: the GOP has basically ignored for the last no course
Speaker 3: a decade minimum, and at this point it's reaching a
Speaker 3: breaking point where they just can't ignore it anymore. They
Speaker 3: tried to appeal and replace obamac here in twenty seventeen
Speaker 3: twenty eighteen, it went down in pretty famous ways, and
Speaker 3: the deal they wanted to pass is not a great
Speaker 3: deal to begin with. But ever since then, they just
Speaker 3: haven't tried much of anything. And the only people talking
Speaker 3: about healthcare reform now are the progressive And that's a
Speaker 3: very dangerous situation because when people when people see that
Speaker 3: their health career costs are skyrocketing, which they are, uh
Speaker 3: and the only people even talking about it are going
Speaker 3: to be AOC and Bernie Sanders like that is how
Speaker 3: you wind up with people like Zar Mombami is mayor,
Speaker 3: even though he doesn't have direct control over health care.
Speaker 3: People just hear these things from the left and resonate
Speaker 3: with it, and not illegitimately either because they they they
Speaker 3: cannot afford these crazy surge surges in these pranceses. So
Speaker 3: the got really needs to get going on healthcare.
Speaker 2: The Democrats plan is, here's groupon we're going to get
Speaker 2: the lower cost on your healthcare. We're going to take
Speaker 2: someone else's money and give it to you. Okay, that's
Speaker 2: not a plan. That is just a band aid.
Speaker 3: Is what that does?
Speaker 2: It make things worse, not better in the long run.
Speaker 2: Look what the subsidies done to the college industry. You know,
Speaker 2: college is out of control because the substet it's the
Speaker 2: same thing. And then I look at the Republicans and
Speaker 2: it's been fifteen years. They have no answer on this.
Speaker 2: All I hear is well, eat better. Well, that's okay,
Speaker 2: eat better, but don't take tail and all okay, great,
Speaker 2: but I've got cancer now and I can't afford it.
Speaker 2: I'm going to take the subsidy. That's that's what we're
Speaker 2: faced with.
Speaker 3: I know, it's it's absolute madness. And the talking points
Speaker 3: that they use for some of it is are legitimate.
Speaker 3: So when they were talking about not wanting any illegal
Speaker 3: immigrants to be on government subside healthcare, this is a
Speaker 3: legitimate concern. But that is not addressing the issue that
Speaker 3: millions of American suits and are seeing their healthcare costs
Speaker 3: go up more than double, sometimes triple over the last
Speaker 3: several years. Myself, I have seen mine go up more
Speaker 3: than in doubles over the last four years. So this
Speaker 3: is this is unsustainable, and nobody on the right is
Speaker 3: even talking about it, let alone at proposing real plans
Speaker 3: on it. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and it was supposed to make America great again,
Speaker 2: and I think healthcare is certainly a cornerstone of that,
Speaker 2: and to some degree, people like Marjorie Taylor Greener are
Speaker 2: accurate on that one too. Let's focus on this kind
Speaker 2: of stuff. You've had fifteen years to come up with
Speaker 2: a plan, and there's no plan at this point. It's
Speaker 2: nothing but platitudes, is what I'm getting. He is a
Speaker 2: comic go ahead.
Speaker 3: People on the right have been attacking her over this,
Speaker 3: and I'm thinking to myself, this is this is madness.
Speaker 3: I find it incredible. I'm raising Marjorie Taylor Green of
Speaker 3: all people, but she is absolutely right about this, and
Speaker 3: I respect her for her courage and standing up to
Speaker 3: people who are otherwise just burying their heads in the
Speaker 3: stands and suspending all is well, it's not, and I
Speaker 3: respect the fact that she's addressing it.
Speaker 2: He is a common ran political analyst and young voice,
Speaker 2: a senior contributor, and talking about tariffs now before the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court and they will decide whether not these are
Speaker 2: illegal or not. If it's a no go. We got
Speaker 2: to talk about refunding money to these countries. But you know,
Speaker 2: at the same time, you look at getting China to
Speaker 2: the table to kind of negotiate, look at some of
Speaker 2: the deals done with other countries. Would it be tough
Speaker 2: for the Supreme Court done do all that.
Speaker 3: Well? In terms of executive the president negotiating with foreign countries,
Speaker 3: he certainly has pretty broad powers there. But the issue
Speaker 3: is that he is currently arguing that the tariffs are
Speaker 3: for national security and in no small part using that
Speaker 3: as leverage. But the issue is that he has also
Speaker 3: made so many other statements as well as other people
Speaker 3: in his administration making other statements that directly undermine that argument,
Speaker 3: because on one day the case what we made that
Speaker 3: we need tariff to protect American industry. The next day
Speaker 3: it will be that tariffs I needed as a temporary
Speaker 3: measure to get other countries to lower their tariffs on up.
Speaker 3: And then the day after that it will be that
Speaker 3: we need tariffs to generate revenues that we can pay
Speaker 3: off our debt. Yeah. Yeah, So nobody, the administration's position
Speaker 3: on this changes on the daily and it's going to
Speaker 3: be a very challenging hill for the administration to climb,
Speaker 3: given how all over the places has been.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's almost like corporate America in a way. Is
Speaker 2: that you know, we live quarter to quarter. We don't
Speaker 2: care about tomorrow. We just care about the bottom line today,
Speaker 2: and we might cut our nose off to spite our face,
Speaker 2: but damn it, we got to do that right now.
Speaker 2: And it's now that's permeated to politics to agree. If
Speaker 2: you think about it, is if this is allowed, you
Speaker 2: want and you know, Republicans will celebrate this big win
Speaker 2: by the Supreme Court and the tariffs can stand. The
Speaker 2: present can do that, Okay, great, but I want of
Speaker 2: the same people will be yelling and angry about this
Speaker 2: in the future next year or five years or eight whenever,
Speaker 2: and at some point a Democrat will be back in
Speaker 2: charge and maybe they go, hey, you know what, climate
Speaker 2: change is an economic emergency. We're going to impost carbon
Speaker 2: tariffs exactly.
Speaker 3: And that's why this whole system was set up not
Speaker 3: to be just as a way we're currently experiencing it,
Speaker 3: because we are. If you have a country in which
Speaker 3: you have radical changes of national policy every four years,
Speaker 3: you're going to go through these wild whiplashes of moving
Speaker 3: to the right for one administration moving to the west,
Speaker 3: and the other administration. And this will happen to some
Speaker 3: extent no matter what the system is, because the executive
Speaker 3: does have some power. But it was never designed to
Speaker 3: be this wild swing between Biden comes into office and
Speaker 3: because he's president, he can do all of these far
Speaker 3: left things and open the border and at least ten
Speaker 3: million illegal immigrants, which nobody voted for. Nobody voted in
Speaker 3: twenty twenty to open the ordering the ten million people
Speaker 3: into the country. That was not part of the campaign.
Speaker 3: It just happened with no input from the American electorate.
Speaker 3: But despite widespread opposition to it. It just continued for
Speaker 3: three and a half years before he even really tried
Speaker 3: to address it. Then Trump comes in. Nobody voted. I
Speaker 3: do not seriously believe that anyone really voted for such
Speaker 3: high parents on other countries. People may, as he did
Speaker 3: talk about it during the campaign to his credit on that,
Speaker 3: but I really don't think that this is much of
Speaker 3: a huge point that people ended up voting on. So
Speaker 3: these massive swings are just detrimental to the stability of
Speaker 3: our country.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there are checks and balances and we need them
Speaker 2: and this will this definitely will decide. It is a
Speaker 2: huge case before the court. He is a calmran with
Speaker 2: the young voices. Thanks again, Kyle, great stuff, appreciate it.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much for having me cool.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Canada just announcing they're going to cut tariffs on
Speaker 2: Chinese electric vehicles, so it kind of cuts America out
Speaker 2: a little bit. A little bit anyway, and Trump's as
Speaker 2: we wait for the court to decide the thing. I
Speaker 2: think we started this conversation back in November. If I'm
Speaker 2: not mistaken, he threatened tariff's on eight NATO allies unless
Speaker 2: we get a deal over Greenland, and so it goes.
Speaker 2: Got to get a news update down this a MLK
Speaker 2: day back with that topic actually and why it means
Speaker 2: a little less this year here in Cincinnati. Maybe a
Speaker 2: lot less anyway, Explain next seven hundred ww