Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent
Speaker 2: coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about,
Speaker 2: it just means the absolute world to have your support.
Speaker 2: But enough with that, let's get to the showing. Good morning, everybody,
Speaker 2: Happy Tuesday. We have an amazing show for everybody today.
Speaker 2: What do we have, Crystal, Indeed.
Speaker 1: We do lots of big stories that are breaking this morning.
Speaker 1: We're taking a deep dive to start with into the
Speaker 1: economy and what could be a perfect storm of a
Speaker 1: number of troubling storm clouds on the horizon, so we'll
Speaker 1: look at that. We've also got a Senator Bob Menandez
Speaker 1: of course and again for corruption, has a pretty incredible
Speaker 1: excuse for what he says is going on. And at
Speaker 1: the same time, and this was a little surprising, Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi actually calling for him to step down. So we'll
Speaker 1: bring you all of that. We also have some updates
Speaker 1: about Governor Newsom and Clotheing positioning himself. I don't know
Speaker 1: about for this presidential election, but for the future for
Speaker 1: something make it moves. He has agreed to that debate
Speaker 1: with Rond DeSantis over on Fox News, so we'll talk
Speaker 1: about that. Also make it some interesting legislative choices and
Speaker 1: earning the ire of a powerful labor union in the state.
Speaker 1: Sager's got a UFO update for us based on a
Speaker 1: Michael Schallenberger report, so he'll bring that to us. And
Speaker 1: we also have a really interesting story here about two
Speaker 1: podcasters who are hoping that Joe Biden will save their show.
Speaker 1: We'll give you all of those details. Also excited to
Speaker 1: be joined by Robert Weisman. He is an expert on
Speaker 1: government corruption. Gee, wonder how that could be relevantly a
Speaker 1: great topic. Yes, just happen to work out that there
Speaker 1: was a little bit of government corruption in the news
Speaker 1: that we could peg this too. Before we get to
Speaker 1: any of that, remember, guys, this is a debate week,
Speaker 1: and so we've got some big plans for you guys.
Speaker 2: That's right, So we've got the debate special. It is
Speaker 2: planned for everyone. We will have one preview that will
Speaker 2: drop tomorrow. There's also going to be a normal counterpoint
Speaker 2: show for everybody. For premium subscribers, that preview will actually
Speaker 2: drop later on today and we will have a very
Speaker 2: special show for everyone on Thursday. So we've got a
Speaker 2: lot of fun graphics and things planned postgame analysis. If
Speaker 2: you can help us out, as we said, it's extra production,
Speaker 2: so extra cost to us. You can sign up at
Speaker 2: breakingpoints dot Com become a premium subscriber as we said,
Speaker 2: we'll get the early drops and all those other things.
Speaker 2: And also everyone just want to say, I know we've
Speaker 2: been having some issues with Spotify. That's really on Spotify's
Speaker 2: end over the last couple of days. We are working
Speaker 2: on it. I know how difficult it is, all the
Speaker 2: processing nightmares with YouTube and Spotify, but unfortunately, you know,
Speaker 2: look we are at the mercy of these big corporations.
Speaker 2: But as we said, we heard you. We are absolutely
Speaker 2: working on it, and we take it seriously. I know
Speaker 2: how much people want the show immediately on time. I'm
Speaker 2: the same way, so I would get a messages.
Speaker 1: From my parents so in settling that they watch the
Speaker 1: show every right now.
Speaker 2: I feel the same way. That's how my mom checks
Speaker 2: up on me.
Speaker 1: All right, Let's start though, by taking a look at
Speaker 1: some of those potential storm clouds on the horizon for
Speaker 1: the economy. Put this up on the screen from the
Speaker 1: Wall Street Journal. They had a good report. The headline
Speaker 1: here is US economy could withstand one shock, but for
Speaker 1: at once. They outline four different potential factors that could
Speaker 1: have some level of impact on the economy and are
Speaker 1: asking the question, Okay, on their own, we could withstand
Speaker 1: each of these, but if you put them together, what
Speaker 1: will the impact be. The first one they highlight here
Speaker 1: is the autoworker strike. If it is prolonged, if it
Speaker 1: ends up hitting more plans than it is right now,
Speaker 1: that could shave some small amount off of growth. You also,
Speaker 1: right now have the threat that we've been talking about
Speaker 1: here of a lengthy government shut down. Looks very likely
Speaker 1: that the government is going to shut down next week.
Speaker 1: The question is how long does it take for them
Speaker 1: to come to a deal. Obviously that could have a
Speaker 1: significant impact on the economy as well. The other thing
Speaker 1: they point to is we are facing the resumption of
Speaker 1: student loan debt payments. That is quite a significant one.
Speaker 1: You have a lot a lot of Americans, millions of
Speaker 1: Americans who are going to be having to put out
Speaker 1: you know, hundreds, if not thousands of dollars per month
Speaker 1: to service those debts that has been on hiatus for
Speaker 1: quite a while. This comes out of time also when
Speaker 1: Americans are increasingly stressed in terms of their debt load,
Speaker 1: in terms of their credit card debt, also in terms
Speaker 1: of you know, the interest rates that they're facing on
Speaker 1: auto loans, home loans, et cetera. The other thing they
Speaker 1: point to here is rising oil prices, which obviously hits
Speaker 1: American consumers extremely hard and sager.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 1: The other one that I just sort of briefly referenced
Speaker 1: here that I would add, putting a fifth level of
Speaker 1: you know, shock to into the economy is the high
Speaker 1: level of interest rates. Yes, and the fact that the
Speaker 1: Fed has signaled while they've been holding rates constant, that
Speaker 1: they could actually hike rates again in the future, if anything,
Speaker 1: that hangs over the economy more than any of these
Speaker 1: individual threats they're pointing to.
Speaker 2: I mean, we just have four simultaneously assaults, immediate assaults
Speaker 2: on the American pocketbook on top of the systemic factors
Speaker 2: that we already are destroying so many people. Let's go
Speaker 2: and put this one up there on the screen. The
Speaker 2: monthly mortgage payment is actually at an all time high
Speaker 2: at two thousand, three hundred dollars. The overall mortgage payment
Speaker 2: in March of twenty March of twenty twenty four, example,
Speaker 2: was only nine hundred and seventy seven dollars. We currently
Speaker 2: have the lowest housing affordability on record in the United States,
Speaker 2: and that's largely because of high prices and because of
Speaker 2: high interest rates. So people are locked into either their
Speaker 2: home and they can't move, or their rent is going
Speaker 2: to be increasing substantially. People always forget that while yes,
Speaker 2: gas is a leading cost of inflation, shelter is right
Speaker 2: up there with it. So you have a major assault
Speaker 2: right now on American affordability going into the most critical
Speaker 2: time for retailers in the United States, the fourth quarter,
Speaker 2: when people do Christmas shopping, they buy a lot of clothes,
Speaker 2: Black Friday, Prime Day, all these other things are coming up.
Speaker 2: And if you see even a marginal decrease in their
Speaker 2: overall level of consumer spending, that is going to impact
Speaker 2: the overall economy. And you know, each one of these
Speaker 2: things crystal point one percent point two percent, I mean
Speaker 2: got up. If you have an overall one percent reduction
Speaker 2: in economic growth. That's a ton actually when we only
Speaker 2: supposed to grow at two percent in inflation is I mean,
Speaker 2: who the hell knows what inflation actually is. It could
Speaker 2: be somewhere between four and nine percent depending on the
Speaker 2: way that you look at. At the point though, is that
Speaker 2: all of these are not good news as we head
Speaker 2: into a critical economic time period for the US economy,
Speaker 2: and then politically, it's also a terrible thing for Biden.
Speaker 2: So I really think this is this is you know,
Speaker 2: it's like nineteen seventies all over again. It's like the
Speaker 2: only thing that we're missing, thank god, is high unemployment.
Speaker 2: But unfortunately it's said we still have very high underemployment
Speaker 2: or we have a decrease in overall real wages relative
Speaker 2: to inflation.
Speaker 1: There's also a lot of global signs of trouble. China
Speaker 1: seems to really be in a very difficult position, especially
Speaker 1: with their real estate sector. Europe also has seen growth
Speaker 1: slow much more significantly, and their economies have been struggling
Speaker 1: a lot more than ours has. We've actually been you know,
Speaker 1: outpacing the rest of the world in terms of the
Speaker 1: strength of our economy quote unquote strength of our economy.
Speaker 1: So when you see the sorts of global factors too.
Speaker 1: That's another thing to weigh on you to say, okay, well,
Speaker 1: as some of that coming here as well, are we
Speaker 1: going to be facing the similar struggles that other countries
Speaker 1: around the world are. Just to dig in a little
Speaker 1: bit more on the debt situation for Americans, which has
Speaker 1: been exacerbated as the Pandemic era programs have all gone
Speaker 1: away as interest rates have been on the upward swing
Speaker 1: to try to deal with inflation. But at the same
Speaker 1: time you have inflation which is also making things so
Speaker 1: much more expensive and forcing Americans to take on more debt.
Speaker 1: We've already covered signs of stress there, the fact that
Speaker 1: credit card debt has hit over trillion dollars for the
Speaker 1: first time, But we have another indicator that Americans are
Speaker 1: feeling stressed in terms of their personal finances. Put this
Speaker 1: up on the screen. You now have credit card losses
Speaker 1: rising at the fastest pace since the Great Financial Crisis.
Speaker 1: So what CNBC reports on here is the fact that
Speaker 1: Goldman Sax is predicting credit card losses are going to
Speaker 1: continue to climb through the end of twenty twenty four
Speaker 1: early twenty twenty five. Very unusual that these losses are
Speaker 1: accelerating outside of an economic downturn. Credit card losses currently
Speaker 1: stand at three point six three percent. That is up
Speaker 1: one and a half percentage points from the bottom. So
Speaker 1: the fact that you have this rapid increase in credit
Speaker 1: card losses and that it's happening at this kind of
Speaker 1: unusual time period is really raising a lot of red
Speaker 1: flags for economists. But it makes sense when you put
Speaker 1: it in with that picture that I just painted of
Speaker 1: the fact that Americans were already taking on a lot
Speaker 1: of debt, They're having to try to deal with high
Speaker 1: interest rates, They've had the loss of these programs that
Speaker 1: benefited them, they've had rising prices, and now you add
Speaker 1: on top of that the fact that student loan payments
Speaker 1: are set to restart on October one. According to The
Speaker 1: Wall Street Journal, that restart could divert roughly one hundred
Speaker 1: billion dollars from americans pockets. That's according to an analysis
Speaker 1: from a Wells Fargo economist. It's the first time bars
Speaker 1: will have had to make payments since March of twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: And while you know this is one slice of the economy,
Speaker 1: it has been significant enough that retailers like Walmart Target
Speaker 1: and others have been really raising concerns in their investors
Speaker 1: car calls about what this could mean for spending among
Speaker 1: some of their core consumer groups. So a lot of
Speaker 1: uneasiness about what's going on here. And listen, if you're
Speaker 1: like a normal person out there, none of this is
Speaker 1: going to be surprised to you, because even as the
Speaker 1: top line numbers in terms of unemployment have been relatively strong,
Speaker 1: we know the way that personal finances have been stretched
Speaker 1: and stretched and stretched over the past several years.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's right. And so actually I'm looking right now
Speaker 2: at the average monthly car payment right now in the
Speaker 2: United States, new car payment seven hundred and twenty eight dollars.
Speaker 2: A used car payment is five hundred and thirty dollars.
Speaker 2: I mean, that's a lot of money that we're talking
Speaker 2: about here. That's more than six grand a year after
Speaker 2: tax income that is being diverted just to people's car notes.
Speaker 2: And so look, you know, I guess it's a broken record,
Speaker 2: but it is one of which I think is so
Speaker 2: so important, is that overall, the personally financial situation of
Speaker 2: the the average American household is vastly worse today than
Speaker 2: it was a couple of years ago, and that is
Speaker 2: going to manifest itself in all sorts of crazy ways
Speaker 2: in terms of how we spend our money, in terms
Speaker 2: of how we think about our politics. And it is
Speaker 2: also why the right track wrong track number is so
Speaker 2: high for President Biden and why his disapproval rating is
Speaker 2: so high as well. You just can't get around it.
Speaker 2: And President Biden just does not seem to have the
Speaker 2: political will or necessity to actually speak to these everyday
Speaker 2: concerns and to say that I'm doing everything I possibly
Speaker 2: can in the immediate immediate term to try to get
Speaker 2: something done with this. And overall that is just hitting
Speaker 2: people very, very hard. I think at a mass like
Speaker 2: sociological and psychic level, which is it's difficult, and you
Speaker 2: can feel it right now in the country. I think
Speaker 2: you can feel the level of dissatisfaction absolutely.
Speaker 1: And I think on the political level, you know, I
Speaker 1: feel like we say this every election, but there's a
Speaker 1: wide open lane for someone who actually promises to deliver
Speaker 1: materially for people, and you know, Biden. Their strategy is
Speaker 1: they're hoping that is still going to be an incredibly
Speaker 1: salient issue probably will right They're hoping that, you know,
Speaker 1: the fact that people hate Donald Trump is going to
Speaker 1: be a salient issue. I'm sure it will be, and
Speaker 1: they're hoping that that is going to be enough. That's
Speaker 1: what they leaned on last time, and look it worked.
Speaker 1: It's what they leaned on in the midterms, and look
Speaker 1: it worked. So it's not like it's a crazy strategy.
Speaker 1: But when you're looking at the polls that have a
Speaker 1: best tide and that one that we covered yesterday outlier
Speaker 1: that had Trump up by ten, which again I don't believe,
Speaker 1: but the fact that you can even have a poll
Speaker 1: that says that indicates maybe you need to do a
Speaker 1: little bit more than what you've been doing. Maybe you
Speaker 1: need to actually have an affirmative economic agenda that is
Speaker 1: going to deliver for people in the immediate term. And
Speaker 1: now I've talked about how the industrial policy and some
Speaker 1: of these bigger picture things like you know, his support
Speaker 1: for labor rights. I think that's really important for the
Speaker 1: economy for the mid term, for the medium term, and
Speaker 1: also for the long term, and is going to be
Speaker 1: really delivering for workers over that period. We had to
Speaker 1: talk about the here and now, what have you done
Speaker 1: for me lately? I don't hear any firmative economic agenda
Speaker 1: from Actually what I hear from Trump is negative because
Speaker 1: they want to cut corporate taxes and go back to
Speaker 1: that well and do even more in that direction. From Biden,
Speaker 1: I just really don't hear any firmative economic vision at all.
Speaker 2: Great economic policy is made where it both provides short
Speaker 2: term relief and cash injection or not even just cash
Speaker 2: injection cat tax cut. It depends on I'm not in
Speaker 2: the current term. I'm talking about in the past, but
Speaker 2: also long term economic design. I talked to a lot
Speaker 2: of yesterday, So I've been thinking about the Kennedy tax bill,
Speaker 2: which shaved the income tax but also actually overall boomed
Speaker 2: the economy from nineteen sixty four, which made it both
Speaker 2: an immediate cut which boosted consumer spending, but provided a
Speaker 2: lot of the economic growth that we saw throughout the
Speaker 2: nineteen sixties. And that was at a time of deliberative
Speaker 2: process where people actually thought about this stuff, They had
Speaker 2: real ideas, and it was like a time not only
Speaker 2: to it was a time where they would both use
Speaker 2: the political reality with design and in the future. And unfortunately,
Speaker 2: I think we really have lost a lot of that.
Speaker 2: The more that we think about it and the way
Speaker 2: that our policy is being designed right now, fly by wire,
Speaker 2: is just so ridiculous and stupid, and that just you know,
Speaker 2: comes and want to underscore again just because we are
Speaker 2: on the verge of it. We are almost certain now
Speaker 2: to have a government shutdown. Every person that I have seen,
Speaker 2: just from a pure timeline level, it doesn't seem possible
Speaker 2: crystal for them to be able to get out of this,
Speaker 2: even if the Senate does pass a continuing resolution which
Speaker 2: is able to get through the House of Representatives through
Speaker 2: some sort of discharge petition and all of that. Just
Speaker 2: from a pure time like time on the floor, it's
Speaker 2: September twenty sixth, we're filming this right now. The government
Speaker 2: funding expires October one at twelve oh one am. That's
Speaker 2: just not enough time, you know, to pass these types
Speaker 2: of bills. And that's without any of the political fights
Speaker 2: that are happening. So that is going to impact the
Speaker 2: economy because not only federal I mean the federal government
Speaker 2: is the largest employer in the United States, but so
Speaker 2: that just no paychecks that are going out there. But
Speaker 2: on top of that, there's a lot of other alternative
Speaker 2: programs that people rely on. For the Feds for services,
Speaker 2: even tourism we remember last time, like the National Park
Speaker 2: Service shutdown, stuff like that, all of that and lead
Speaker 2: into overall economic conditions.
Speaker 1: Yeah, indeed, all right, So let's transition into the way
Speaker 1: that current president and former president are trying to signal
Speaker 1: their support for working class people this week. We do
Speaker 1: have a historic event today with President Biden showing up
Speaker 1: at the picket line, expected to arrive in Wayne County,
Speaker 1: Michigan to join workers there striking workers around noon today.
Speaker 1: UAW President Jean Fain is expected to join him on
Speaker 1: the picket line. As we said, first time that we
Speaker 1: know of that. Labor historians can figure out that a
Speaker 1: president has ever done this, which I think is a
Speaker 1: real reflection of the way that the politics around labor
Speaker 1: unions and corporate power have dramatically shifted in just a
Speaker 1: few years time, and hugely accelerated by the pandemic. So
Speaker 1: you have Biden making that trek there today, you have
Speaker 1: former President Trump speaking to workers also in Michigan in
Speaker 1: a neighboring county, sort of trying to counter program the
Speaker 1: Republican debate that's going to be going on. He's going
Speaker 1: to be trashing the Biden ev Agena. So far, his
Speaker 1: tactic has been to sort of like trash quote unquote
Speaker 1: union bosses, but also trash the Biden ev transition and
Speaker 1: claim that, you know, he's the one who will really
Speaker 1: help workers because he opposes all of that. So you've
Speaker 1: got those rival visions at the same time. One of
Speaker 1: the big conversations that has come out of the auto
Speaker 1: workers strike, and one of the things they've been talking
Speaker 1: about a lot, understandably, is how wildly out of step
Speaker 1: ceo pay at the Big three automakers has been versus
Speaker 1: median worker pay. Put this up on the screen. You
Speaker 1: know it's bad when even the Wall Street Journal is like, hey,
Speaker 1: auto CEOs maybe making three hundred times what workers make
Speaker 1: is a little bit over the top. So they did
Speaker 1: what is actually a very useful analysis of where the
Speaker 1: Big three automakers stand versus other large corporations in terms
Speaker 1: of their executive compensation, and what they find is lo
Speaker 1: and behold. Even in an era when corporate executives typically
Speaker 1: pake wildly astronomical salaries as opposed to the workers, even
Speaker 1: in that era, the Big Three stand out for just
Speaker 1: how much their CEOs make versus what the median workers make.
Speaker 1: So they also point to the fact that wage gains
Speaker 1: for rank and file employees have not actually kept pace
Speaker 1: with inflation. Rank and file employees have taken a pay
Speaker 1: cut when you account for inflation. Meanwhile, over that same period,
Speaker 1: CEO pay has gone up by forty percent. So that
Speaker 1: is why these auto workers, among a host of reasons,
Speaker 1: are calling for significant pay increases because they have actually
Speaker 1: fallen way behind in terms of their salaries. So let's
Speaker 1: take a look at some of the specifics. Here Ford's
Speaker 1: CEO last year earned around twenty one million dollars. That's
Speaker 1: two hundred and eighty one times the company's median employee earnings,
Speaker 1: and that's actually the lowest ratio of the Big three.
Speaker 1: Over at General Mode, Mary Vera made twenty nine million
Speaker 1: dollars last year, that was three hundred and sixty two
Speaker 1: times the median employee earnings. And over at Stalantis, the
Speaker 1: global parent of Chrysler, Dodge and other brands, their CEO
Speaker 1: last year made around twenty five million, or three hundred
Speaker 1: and sixty five times the average employee pay. So even
Speaker 1: when you account for you know what other large corporations
Speaker 1: are doing, the Big three are at the top end
Speaker 1: of those pay ratios with their executives wildly out earning
Speaker 1: by three hundred times what the typical worker is.
Speaker 2: One of the reasons I always feel like I'm taking
Speaker 2: crazy pills on this is that we talk in percentages
Speaker 2: and sometimes we don't even just deal in outright dollar figures. So,
Speaker 2: for example, under the current contract, the UAW starts at
Speaker 2: eighteen dollars an hour at an annualized basis, that is
Speaker 2: thirty seven thousand, four hundred and forty dollars per year.
Speaker 2: You please please tell me a city in this country
Speaker 2: that you can quote unquote make it on at thirty
Speaker 2: seven thousand, four hundred and forty dollars per year. I
Speaker 2: don't even think you could be a normal renter without
Speaker 2: penny pinching at that salary. At the top, they can
Speaker 2: make up to thirty two dollars an hour. Thirty two
Speaker 2: dollars an hour is sixty six thousand, five hundred and
Speaker 2: sixty dollars per year. That is less than the overall
Speaker 2: average household income in the United States at seventy thousand.
Speaker 2: So what are these people asking for? Okay, we can
Speaker 2: do a little bit of math. Thirty seven thousand dollars
Speaker 2: at a thirty percent pay increase is how much. It's
Speaker 2: around forty something thousand dollars per year. That seems eminently
Speaker 2: reasonable for a skilled position of a unionized hounor worker.
Speaker 2: Same whenever we do sixty six thousand, we are just
Speaker 2: pegging slightly above the overall average household income in the
Speaker 2: United States. So when you put it that way, I
Speaker 2: mean it completely falls apart, right, Crystal. When we're talking
Speaker 2: about we're talking about bargaining so that the top wage
Speaker 2: gets you to near average in the US, and I
Speaker 2: think that's fine. The UAW and workers, specifically auto workers,
Speaker 2: where the bedrock of the American middle class. The idea
Speaker 2: of the middle class was so you earn about a
Speaker 2: household income, and on set household income, you could mostly
Speaker 2: make it. Now, to be honest, even seventy five thousand
Speaker 2: dollars for a family of four, you're not going to
Speaker 2: go very far. You could maybe scrape by with some
Speaker 2: rent in a not a particularly nice house, but you know,
Speaker 2: you can ish make it. You could probably save up
Speaker 2: enough to put your kid through like community college. But
Speaker 2: we're not talking about like high end fly five flying wages.
Speaker 2: You're not traveling, you're vacation at seventy thousand dollars a year,
Speaker 2: you're driving a Disney World like if you want to
Speaker 2: make sure that you're not get taken out any debt.
Speaker 2: So that's at the top end of the spectrum. I
Speaker 2: just think we should again talk in real terms. And
Speaker 2: even this three hundred and sixty five number, it's not
Speaker 2: particularly useful when you until you think again in the
Speaker 2: overall dollar figure, we're talking about twenty twenty five thirty
Speaker 2: million dollars in a single year. Now, obviously, yes, I
Speaker 2: understand there's a big difference between stock compensation any more,
Speaker 2: but I also don't even think it's just as useful
Speaker 2: to just focus in on CEO pay. Let's talk about
Speaker 2: executive pay. The fact is the executives are all rewarded
Speaker 2: and overall cash bonuses or sorry, in stock bonuses. And
Speaker 2: the problem is is that these companies have financially engineered
Speaker 2: themselves such that they use huge portions of their money
Speaker 2: to buy back their own stock inflate the overall value,
Speaker 2: and then said value goes right back into their pockets,
Speaker 2: which they get to realize that grains. And even if
Speaker 2: this is the greatest scam in all of America, even
Speaker 2: if they don't realize. Guys like CEOs, Let's say they
Speaker 2: have all this stock that's just sitting in their bank.
Speaker 2: They can take cash loans at very very low rates
Speaker 2: from their high net worth bankers, and they can live
Speaker 2: off set cash and never pay one dime on that
Speaker 2: as attacks. So it's like a perpetual motion machine that
Speaker 2: these people have created to live multi gajillion dollar lifestyles.
Speaker 2: The people who are forwarded shareholders, GM, Stilantis, all these people,
Speaker 2: they're doing fine, but the overall workforce is making well below,
Speaker 2: even at the top rate, what the average household income is.
Speaker 2: When you put it that way, every American would be like,
Speaker 2: all right, I'm cool with this. Yeah, It's just, you know,
Speaker 2: the way we phrase and talk about all these things,
Speaker 2: it misses any of the like the brass tacks reality.
Speaker 2: Can you actually pay a freaking mortgage for your family
Speaker 2: on the top salary that I mean, Look, we talked
Speaker 2: about mortgage payments. Good luck at two three hundred dollars
Speaker 2: at an average mortgage price somewhere even in Michigan, even
Speaker 2: in the heartland. Now at this point, what's the overall
Speaker 2: average price house Maybe four hundred fifty thousand, five hundred thousand,
Speaker 2: and that's if you're lucky enough to have one hundred
Speaker 2: grand down, you don't have to pay PMI. So you
Speaker 2: put all these things together once again, I don't think
Speaker 2: it's a very difficult conversation.
Speaker 1: Now, this is what CNBC was calling the politics.
Speaker 2: Of NB Yes, but that's not even envy, that's just normality.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's the politics of like basic fairness and
Speaker 1: having a functional society. One thing that has been extremely
Speaker 1: hard to me, though, is as this strike has progressed,
Speaker 1: the American people's support for it has actually only gotten stronger.
Speaker 1: So there's a new poll out that shows a shift
Speaker 1: in favor of the workers. Now you have sixty two
Speaker 1: percent of the country actively standing behind the union. That's
Speaker 1: up from fifty five percent in this Data for Progress
Speaker 1: poll just one week prior. So in spite of all
Speaker 1: of the propaganda that you hear about all the politics
Speaker 1: of envy and all these workers are asking for too much,
Speaker 1: et cetera, et cetera, In spite of what is literally
Speaker 1: decades of propaganda trying to indoctrinate the American people into
Speaker 1: believing that rank and file workers do not deserve a
Speaker 1: middle class living people aren't buying it, and that, to
Speaker 1: me is one of the most heartening, most extraordinary things
Speaker 1: that is happening right now. Is in spite of all
Speaker 1: the money that's been spent on the other side of this,
Speaker 1: all of the years of media propaganda, all of the
Speaker 1: bias coverage, all of the bearing and smearing of working
Speaker 1: class people, in spite of all of that, the American
Speaker 1: people are not buying it, and that is the most
Speaker 1: beautiful thing to behold here now. I will say, we're
Speaker 1: starting to see some dirty tricks from the companies themselves.
Speaker 1: One of them announced that they're shutting down a battery
Speaker 1: plan as sort of like a veiled threat. The UAW
Speaker 1: is calling them out for this. Those are the sorts
Speaker 1: of tactics that they will deploy. But I think the
Speaker 1: fact that you already have forward giving some significant ground.
Speaker 1: They're not all the way there, but some significant ground
Speaker 1: in terms of concessions, the fact that you had pilots
Speaker 1: and you had teamsters, ups drivers make significant gains from
Speaker 1: their own labor activity. I think these auto workers, with
Speaker 1: the president coming today and with the former president showing
Speaker 1: up for whatever reason tomorrow, I think they are in
Speaker 1: a very strong position of leverage, and I'm hopeful that
Speaker 1: they're going to be able to actually secure a good deal,
Speaker 1: which matters not just for them, it matters for the
Speaker 1: whole auto industry. It matters for our conception of what
Speaker 1: working people deserve and are able to ask for and
Speaker 1: demand when they band together. So we obviously are going
Speaker 1: to keep a close close eye on it.
Speaker 4: That's right.
Speaker 2: So why don't we talk a little bit about corruption,
Speaker 2: and why don't we talk about overpaid useless folks. One
Speaker 2: of those is Senator Bob Menendez. Not overpaid by us
Speaker 2: the taxpayer, overpaid by the people bribing him with straight
Speaker 2: up gold bars allegedly by the way, for Bob's lawyers.
Speaker 2: He had the most incredible defense I have ever seen
Speaker 2: about why I had all of this cash stuffed in
Speaker 2: his envelopes, stuffed in his jacket pockets bearing the Senate
Speaker 2: insignia and his name. I'm not even going to tease it.
Speaker 2: Take a lesson.
Speaker 5: I firmly believe that when all the facts are presented,
Speaker 5: not only will I be exonerated, but I still will
Speaker 5: be the New Jersey's senior Senator. For now, I want
Speaker 5: to address four things. First, A cornerstone of the foundation
Speaker 5: of American democracy and our justice is the principle that
Speaker 5: all people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. All people.
Speaker 5: I ask for nothing more and deserve nothing less. The
Speaker 5: court of public opinion is no substitute for our revere
Speaker 5: justice system. We cannot set aside the presumption of innocence
Speaker 5: for political expediency when the harm is irrevocable. To those
Speaker 5: who have rushed to judgment, you have done so based
Speaker 5: on a limited set of facts, framed by the prosecution
Speaker 5: to be as salacious as possible. Remember, prosecutors get it
Speaker 5: wrong sometimes. Sadly, I know that instead of waiting for
Speaker 5: all the facts to be presented, others have rushed to
Speaker 5: judgment because they see a political opportunity for themselves or
Speaker 5: those around them. All I humbly ask for in this moment,
Speaker 5: in my colleagues in Congress, the elected leaders and the
Speaker 5: advocates of New Jersey that I have worked with for years,
Speaker 5: as well as each person who calls New Jersey home,
Speaker 5: is to pause and allow for all the facts to
Speaker 5: be presented. Third, for thirty years, I have withdrawn thousands
Speaker 5: of dollars in cash from my personal savings account, which
Speaker 5: I have kept for emergencies and because of the history
Speaker 5: of my family facing confiscation in Cuba. Now this may
Speaker 5: seem old fashioned, but these were moneies drawn from my
Speaker 5: personal savings account based on the income that I have
Speaker 5: lawfully derived over those thirty years. I look forward to
Speaker 5: addressing other issues at trial.
Speaker 2: So Crystal, his excuse is he's Cuban. Because I am Cuban,
Speaker 2: I withdraw large amounts of cash. You know why this
Speaker 2: particularly offensive. Guess what, Crystal, His family emigrated to the
Speaker 2: United States. When do you think nineteen fifty three? Does
Speaker 2: anybody want to tell me when Fidel Castro came to
Speaker 2: power nineteen fifty nine, Aka, he came to this country
Speaker 2: under Batista's rule, not under Fidel Castro. So it's just
Speaker 2: miraculous that his parents came to this country six years
Speaker 2: prior to the communist takeover, and that he learned through
Speaker 2: their legacy of leaving Cuba under a non communist to
Speaker 2: withdraw massive amounts of cash. I will say this one
Speaker 2: reason why I'm happy that he said, this is the
Speaker 2: easiest thing in the world to check. Okay, fine, you
Speaker 2: took out x amount, Let's go check the bank. The
Speaker 2: bank easy as hell? Yeah, right. Also, if he was
Speaker 2: withdrawing that amount of cash from his bank. You know,
Speaker 2: the bank is supposed to alert the FEDS to that.
Speaker 2: Like if you or I walk into a bank, if
Speaker 2: you or I who's not or anyone named not named
Speaker 2: Jeffrey Epstein were to walk into a cash into a
Speaker 2: bank and withdraw anything more than I think it's like
Speaker 2: ten thousand and one dollars, then they have to immediately
Speaker 2: alert the FEDS. Now, I mean, look, once again, they
Speaker 2: have easy access to his bank records. You can just
Speaker 2: check it. Be like, all right, as he withdrawn x
Speaker 2: amount of cash, well does he have said amount of
Speaker 2: cash in his pockets? If it's more than that, where
Speaker 2: did the cash come from? Even if he didn't take
Speaker 2: it from a bribe, which again they found the DNA
Speaker 2: of the person allegedly bribing him on st cash. Well
Speaker 2: you didn't report it to the IRS. And that's a
Speaker 2: crime too. I mean, you know, we should all just
Speaker 2: start using our ethnic heritage's defense should the IRS ever come.
Speaker 2: Like the RS comes from me. Oh, I'm Indian. You know,
Speaker 2: we we're real penny pintures. That's that's the actual It's like,
Speaker 2: what are we talking about it?
Speaker 1: I wonder if his Cuban heritage also led him to
Speaker 1: store random gold bars in his house, which, by the way,
Speaker 1: he got asked a question about and did not deferred
Speaker 1: answer that one. This wave that went away. Producer Mac
Speaker 1: was analogizing this to when Cuomo was saying that he's
Speaker 1: not a sexual harasser.
Speaker 2: He's just Italian. He's just Italian.
Speaker 1: So here we got menandez he he's not corrupt, He's
Speaker 1: just Cuban. He's just Cuban guys, this is what Cubans do.
Speaker 2: These are the most shameless people who have evern Now.
Speaker 1: I think it's worth noting and also sort of encouraging.
Speaker 1: No other politicians would stand by. I'm at this press conference,
Speaker 1: and I know that he tried. He definitely tried, and
Speaker 1: you last time. I mean, listen, it's a low bar.
Speaker 1: This should be the easiest thing in the world to
Speaker 1: denounce this guy and say this dude should resign. But
Speaker 1: apparently it's been very difficult. You have had a trickle
Speaker 1: now of a few other Democratic senators who have called
Speaker 1: for him to step down. Me, so have Fancy Pelosi.
Speaker 1: This is maybe the biggest one who is also calling
Speaker 1: for him to resign. Will show you that in a minute.
Speaker 1: But just the shit. Think about this. This dude was
Speaker 1: indicted on the most brazen allegations of corruption you can imagine,
Speaker 1: using his position as chair of the Foreign Relations Committee
Speaker 1: to literally sell out the country. I mean, this is
Speaker 1: like traitorous type of behavior that he stands accused of,
Speaker 1: and he announces his reelect like three days later. That's insane.
Speaker 1: The shamelessness of that is just absolutely incredible. It's man,
Speaker 1: it's something something.
Speaker 2: It certainly is. I guess what. White House can't even
Speaker 2: call on him to resign. Here's what Karine Jean Pierre said.
Speaker 6: And given that President Biden is the leader of the
Speaker 6: Democratic Party, does the president believe that a person who
Speaker 6: is facing allegations that are as serious as the allegations
Speaker 6: confronting the Senator, that there is any place for somebody
Speaker 6: like Senator Menendez in the Democratic Party.
Speaker 7: So I'm going to be very clear, this is a
Speaker 7: serious matter. We see this as a serious matter, I think,
Speaker 7: and we believe the Senator stepping down from his chairmanship
Speaker 7: was the right thing to do. Obviously, the right thing
Speaker 7: to do as it relates to anything else. Any decision
Speaker 7: that he has to make, that's certainly going to be
Speaker 7: up to him and the Senate leadership to decide. But
Speaker 7: of course we see this as a serious matter, and
Speaker 7: I'm just going to leave it there for now.
Speaker 2: We see his serious matter, and it's up to what
Speaker 2: are we doing here here? Yeah, mister Biden, who remember
Speaker 2: his sanctimonious speech on day one, He's like, if I
Speaker 2: find out a single one of you I ever mistreat somebody,
Speaker 2: or you ever comport yourself, I will call for your
Speaker 2: resignation that day. But Bob, my old colleague, Oh, I've
Speaker 2: known him for a long time. That's just how they
Speaker 2: are over there as a human. Let's give some credit, Okay,
Speaker 2: there have been some people who are willing to call
Speaker 2: him out. So you had this statement from summer leave.
Speaker 2: If you want to go ahead and read it. The representaive.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I thought this was strong. I just want to
Speaker 1: put it up there to flag it. Go ahead and
Speaker 1: put it up there on the screen. So she issued
Speaker 1: the statement saying center Menandez must resign. Corruption is corruption, briberies, bribery.
Speaker 1: We can't talk about holding Thomas and Alito accountable for
Speaker 1: selling on our freedoms for luxury vacations and private jet flights.
Speaker 1: If we fail to hold a senator accountable for selling
Speaker 1: on his chairmanship to a dictator gifting gold bars and
Speaker 1: cash to keep military aid flowing to Egypt as its
Speaker 1: government violates human rights. Menendez is of course O due process,
Speaker 1: but the American people are O. Trust in our institutions
Speaker 1: or fight against right wing fascism depends on that trust.
Speaker 1: And I think she correctly identifies their saga that if
Speaker 1: you want to be the party that's talking about good government,
Speaker 1: talking about the importance of democracy and the importance of
Speaker 1: rebuilding trust and institutions, how can you look the other
Speaker 1: way on such a blatant, just insane violation of the
Speaker 1: trust and the power that he was given. And again
Speaker 1: I can't get over the fact. Remember this is the
Speaker 1: second time he has been indicted on similar charges, and
Speaker 1: after the first time back in twenty fifteen, they went
Speaker 1: ahead and gave him the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is an incredibly powerful position that they
Speaker 1: went ahead and decided to give him after he had
Speaker 1: already faced similar charges. It just boggles the mind how
Speaker 1: this is allowed to happen.
Speaker 2: Hen Klippenstein's been pointing out the difference. For example, Senator
Speaker 2: Schumer when Trump indictment quote, no one is above the law.
Speaker 2: On Menenda's indictment. Bob Menendez is a dedicated public servant.
Speaker 2: He has always fired people of New Jersey. And look
Speaker 2: even Pelosi, you know, think about how many sanctums on
Speaker 2: these things he said about the Trump charges all what
Speaker 2: are serious? We've covered them all here extensively. Yeah, just
Speaker 2: even this, even when she does call for him to resign,
Speaker 2: it's the most tepid. She has to be drawn to it.
Speaker 2: She's like, you know, kind of she clearly is weighing
Speaker 2: her words very carefully. Take a lesson.
Speaker 7: Several host Democrats, along with New Jersey's Governor Phil Murphy,
Speaker 7: have all called on Center Mennindez to resign.
Speaker 2: Do you think he should resign?
Speaker 8: I respect their position that they are taking, and the
Speaker 8: charges are formidable, and if in fact we're going to
Speaker 8: say that if you're indicted, you should resign, we have
Speaker 8: a situation in the House, as you know from the
Speaker 8: state of New York, that that would hold too. But
Speaker 8: right now, sadly, because of the challenges that we face,
Speaker 8: because the skepticism that exists in our country about governance,
Speaker 8: about this Republican party that doesn't believe in governance, doesn't
Speaker 8: believe in science, so wants to take down on everything
Speaker 8: in order to give tax breaks to the wealthiest. We've
Speaker 8: got to stay focused on that. And for that reason,
Speaker 8: it probably be a good idea if you did resign.
Speaker 2: So because the Republicans are bad and bad and bad
Speaker 2: and bad and bad, and for that reason, it'd probably
Speaker 2: be a good idea. He was like, come on now,
Speaker 2: all right, like what are we doing here? Just say it,
Speaker 2: Say it's terrible, Say he's awful, and you know, how
Speaker 2: can you have any credibility whatever? You don't call on
Speaker 2: the others. But look, I think that the real sin
Speaker 2: it's not because Pelosi. She doesn't suffer for this. The
Speaker 2: people who are going to suffer are the actual Democratic senator.
Speaker 2: So we gave credit Senator John Fetterman. Let's give it
Speaker 2: to Peter Welch from a Democrat from Vermont, came out
Speaker 2: and he said that, he said that Bob man Endez
Speaker 2: has got to go. He said it last night and shared.
Speaker 2: Brown also came out and said share it. And you
Speaker 2: know the thing is too this needs to be representative
Speaker 2: of there's a political benefit to being in front of
Speaker 2: these things. Sharon Brown is in a tough spot, right,
Speaker 2: He's running in a Trump plus eight state, longtime survivor,
Speaker 2: working class democrat, longtime union guy on policy and more.
Speaker 2: And I bet you that if he didn't speak out
Speaker 2: about this, his constituents would be like, why are you
Speaker 2: okay with democratic corruption? And he can stand up and
Speaker 2: be like, no, I was the second person to come
Speaker 2: out and call on him to resign. These are, I believe,
Speaker 2: the type of things that penetrate to the core of
Speaker 2: how everybody knows that these filthy politicians actually act. And
Speaker 2: so for a lot of doubt. You know, if the
Speaker 2: gold bar thing it's so silation, it's so perfect, they're
Speaker 2: real average, normal working day people who look at that.
Speaker 2: They're disgusted to see somebody with sixty six thousand dollars
Speaker 2: of gold in their house and cash in their pockets.
Speaker 2: That we need to normalize this. There's a benefit to
Speaker 2: speaking out on it. It's not just partisan. You got to
Speaker 2: call out your own side. That's what we what have
Speaker 2: we found The most powerful thing on this show is
Speaker 2: when we call out the people that we even even
Speaker 2: kind of agree with, right, you know, that's what gives
Speaker 2: us credibility too.
Speaker 1: That's when it's uncomfortable, and I will say, I mean,
Speaker 1: where are the Republicans on you know, Justice Thomas, Where
Speaker 1: are the Republicans on Donald Trump and Jared Kushner and whatever?
Speaker 1: So I don't want to like make it seem like
Speaker 1: they've been calling out their own side. You do have
Speaker 1: at least a few Democrats here who have, after the
Speaker 1: second indictment with the gold bars, are like, all right,
Speaker 1: this is a bridge too far. But again, all of
Speaker 1: this should be so easy. It should be so easy
Speaker 1: to look at what ninety nine point nine percent of
Speaker 1: the American people would say is completely unacceptable, wildly corrupt
Speaker 1: behavior and just say no, no, you cannot continue to
Speaker 1: serve in this position. You must step aside now in
Speaker 1: terms of the political landscapement, and has just announced for
Speaker 1: his reelect incredibly amidst all of this, he is facing
Speaker 1: a Democratic primary challenger. It does seem like, you know,
Speaker 1: to use an old saying in politics, the walls are
Speaker 1: starting to close in when you've got much of the
Speaker 1: New Jersey Congressional delegation, the new Jersey governor now Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker 1: now a growing list of Democratic senators all saying okay, dude,
Speaker 1: time's up. Time for you to go. I don't know
Speaker 1: that he will step aside, because he obviously is very
Speaker 1: attached to this particular Senate seat and the benefit that
Speaker 1: has conferred upon him and his family. But I do
Speaker 1: think if you have everybody line up behind his Democratic
Speaker 1: competitor in the primary, there's a good chance that he
Speaker 1: could be ousted in the primary. I think that's probably
Speaker 1: the best chance you have to get this guy out
Speaker 1: of office in the immediate term, because otherwise, you know,
Speaker 1: I don't think he's going to resign on his own.
Speaker 1: If the pressure as hot as it is right now,
Speaker 1: isn't causing him to fold, is just causing him to
Speaker 1: be defined and make up these insane excuses like no,
Speaker 1: actually it's just because I'm Cuban. Then I don't think
Speaker 1: that he's likely to resign over any of this, no
Speaker 1: matter how pologies.
Speaker 2: Through the democratic process. Yeah, people of New Jersey, you
Speaker 2: guys need to step up. All of you guys did
Speaker 2: reelect him. So I don't know what to tell you, right,
Speaker 2: but I'm not from there. Maybe he's done something that
Speaker 2: I don't know about.
Speaker 1: All right, So turning to some other political news here,
Speaker 1: this is kind of interesting. So there's been a lot
Speaker 1: of back and forth about Governor California Gavin Newsom potentially
Speaker 1: debating Governor Florida Ron de Santis, who are both sort
Speaker 1: of like it's this weird proxy fight both between their
Speaker 1: states and their ideaologies, and also between two very ambitious
Speaker 1: men who both clearly want to be President of the
Speaker 1: United States, but are probably not going to be President
Speaker 1: of the United States at least in twenty twenty four.
Speaker 1: So you finally appear to have an agreement between these
Speaker 1: two gentlemen to debate. Let's put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: From Fox News, they announced that Sean Hannity is going
Speaker 1: to moderate the Red State Versus Blue State debate between
Speaker 1: Florida Governor Ran Desantas and California Governor Gavin Newsom. They
Speaker 1: go on to say that this will occur on November thirty.
Speaker 1: If it's going to be a ninety minute debate, is
Speaker 1: going to take place at a location to be determined
Speaker 1: in Georgia. It's going to air on Hannity at nine pm. Hannity,
Speaker 1: they say, first raised the prospect of a debate with
Speaker 1: Newsom during his exclusive sit down this past June, following
Speaker 1: which Governor DeSantis officially signed on to participate in July.
Speaker 1: This will mark the first time the two governors will
Speaker 1: face off in a debate. Now, there is some indication
Speaker 1: from the Newsom side that it's not quite as locked
Speaker 1: in as Fox News is portraying. There's still some details
Speaker 1: that need to be worked out that could cause this
Speaker 1: thing to fall apart. It looks like one of the
Speaker 1: sticking points originally was going to be whether or not
Speaker 1: there was a live studio audience. Newsom, I think understandably
Speaker 1: didn't want the optics of a Fox News audience that's
Speaker 1: just constantly cheering Desantas and constantly booing him or playing
Speaker 1: into here or whatever. He wanted it to have, you know,
Speaker 1: for the TV viewing audience, more of a neutral feel
Speaker 1: to it, which again I think is understandable. He seems
Speaker 1: to have been able to achieve that in terms in
Speaker 1: the negotiations. But anyway, that's what we know. It'll be
Speaker 1: interesting content. I mean, I'm looking forward to it. I
Speaker 1: think it'd be fun very much looking forward. Look, we
Speaker 1: said this in I think this is great. I want
Speaker 1: to normalize this. It's actually a lot of fun. You know,
Speaker 1: at the time we haven't done this in a long time.
Speaker 1: I'm not really sure why. I'm trying to think about it.
Speaker 2: The last governor to win the presidency was it Bill Clinton,
Speaker 2: I think in nineteen ninety two. But it used to
Speaker 2: be I mean for a long time, going all the
Speaker 2: way back to the early days of the Republic. The
Speaker 2: Senate and Washington was not seen as the pathway to
Speaker 2: become president. It was to be a successful governor, people
Speaker 2: like Ronald Reagan, people like Bill Clinton. State level politics,
Speaker 2: your ability to be an executive. There's like, you know,
Speaker 2: an adage of like, oh you ran a state, you
Speaker 2: can run a country. It's like an executive thing, and
Speaker 2: it's probably something to it. But the point though is
Speaker 2: that at that time, in the Clinton era and when
Speaker 2: things were less Washington centric, there were like debates and
Speaker 2: elevation of statewide politicians and they were seen as the future.
Speaker 2: It's only like the Obama era onward that we just
Speaker 2: continue to nominate senators, at least on the Democratic side
Speaker 2: and obviously even on the Republican side alternatives to Trump.
Speaker 2: You know, DeSantis is more of akin to the old era.
Speaker 2: So my point though, is that seeing the debates between
Speaker 2: these two states I mean, look, undeniable. California and Florida
Speaker 2: the two of the most dynamic and economically booming states
Speaker 2: in the country. I know that sounds odd to say
Speaker 2: about California, but listen, if it was its own country,
Speaker 2: it would be like the seventh it would be a
Speaker 2: member of the G seven. It's a massive economy. Even
Speaker 2: with the net loss of five hundred thousand dollars five
Speaker 2: hundred thousand or so people, it's like forty million people
Speaker 2: who live in the state. They have two very different
Speaker 2: visions of governance, and so to see the two of
Speaker 2: them head to head, they're both like running ads in
Speaker 2: each other's states, like why you should.
Speaker 1: We Yeah, it's good.
Speaker 2: It's a good thing. People should watch it. And frankly,
Speaker 2: if you live in Florida, if you live in California,
Speaker 2: these people have way, probably way more of an impact
Speaker 2: on your day to day life than a lot of
Speaker 2: people who live here in Washington. So to see those
Speaker 2: like contrasts about how you run a state and their
Speaker 2: ideas and like even some from social policy to economic policy,
Speaker 2: to COVID policy, whatever. I think it's I think it's
Speaker 2: a fantastic thing for the country. Here's really do.
Speaker 1: Here's a question for you, Sager. Like obviously, like I said,
Speaker 1: both of them want to be president.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Newsom has gone to great lengths to say, Oh no,
Speaker 1: I think Kamala Harris is great and I wouldn't run
Speaker 1: against her. And I love Joe Biden. Of course, Joe
Speaker 1: Biden's going to be the guy. And I have no
Speaker 1: concerns about his age whatever. He's been fully on the message,
Speaker 1: on the script in terms of Biden Harris. But you know,
Speaker 1: if for whatever reason, there was to be an opening
Speaker 1: this year, no doubt he'd jump in. And I think
Speaker 1: he's more positioning himself for twenty twenty eight, no doubt
Speaker 1: about that. In terms of DeSantis, do you think that he, Sacer,
Speaker 1: has harmed himself in this primary sufficiently that he would
Speaker 1: be kind of out in terms of a twenty twenty
Speaker 1: eight run.
Speaker 2: I don't know. You know, it's a tough question. I
Speaker 2: can only say what I've been reading and hearing about,
Speaker 2: which is that his presidential run has significantly diminished his
Speaker 2: power in the state of Florida. So far, he was
Speaker 2: seen as untouchable, and he was seen I mean for
Speaker 2: a good reason. Yeah, he won the biggest margin for
Speaker 2: Florida governor in modern history. He transformed the politics of
Speaker 2: the state. He had ironclad control over the Florida Republican Party.
Speaker 2: Now there's a lot of cracks that are beginning to show.
Speaker 2: You got a lot of Florida Republicans who are back
Speaker 2: from Trump. They're also like, oh, you're not as popular
Speaker 2: as we want. Stop, Maybe we're going to buck you
Speaker 2: whenever comes to the state legislature. So his overnight transformation
Speaker 2: of the state has begun to crumble. And I think
Speaker 2: that the record that people were so celebrating, he's not
Speaker 2: going to have the same ability to just ram through
Speaker 2: and do whatever he wants in the state legislature like
Speaker 2: he did at one time, which was the bedrock of
Speaker 2: his appeal as president. So at the same time, in America,
Speaker 2: you shoot your shot, wasn't there was a chance? It
Speaker 2: was small. I personally wouldn't have done it if I
Speaker 2: were him, But if you were as ambitious and he
Speaker 2: wants to be president, and there was a time, you
Speaker 2: know the moment, and I think he probably did make
Speaker 2: the right call in terms of there is and probably
Speaker 2: still is a small chance that he could be the
Speaker 2: eventual Republican nominee but if things can go the way
Speaker 2: that they are, I do think it probably hurt him
Speaker 2: overall in the long run. This isn't Reagan running against
Speaker 2: Ford in the seventy six primary, which is what actually
Speaker 2: made him the air parent this time around because it
Speaker 2: was so close and Ford actually had to accommodate Reagan
Speaker 2: and even think about making this vice president and all
Speaker 2: of this thing because he showed real power and appeal
Speaker 2: to the overall base. Instead, we've seen a reversion from
Speaker 2: DeSantis's original high position and poll down to falling as
Speaker 2: just your average other Republican. I think that is overall
Speaker 2: a political net, but it's still early. You know, you
Speaker 2: don't know.
Speaker 1: I think that's sure. The other thing that's a real
Speaker 1: issue for him is that donors have fallen out.
Speaker 2: I love with him, probably.
Speaker 1: And I mean for a guy who was really leaning
Speaker 1: on that, I'm not going to say he didn't have
Speaker 1: his own base of support. I think he definitely did,
Speaker 1: at least I think that's waned over the over the months.
Speaker 1: But he definitely did have his own base of excited
Speaker 1: support nationwide. But he was really making the play to
Speaker 1: be the donor alternative to Trump. And you know, they've
Speaker 1: all based, not all, but many of them have moved on.
Speaker 1: Many of them have fallen out of love with the
Speaker 1: idea that this guy is really the future and this
Speaker 1: is you know, really the person they need to get behind.
Speaker 1: They've sort of you know, Florida with Tim Scott, Florida
Speaker 1: with Nikki Ale. The latest analysis that I saw is
Speaker 1: they've basically given up on it being anybody other than
Speaker 1: Trump at this point. Yeah, but I think the fact
Speaker 1: that whether it's fair or unfair, and it's hard for me. Look,
Speaker 1: I'm not on a campaign trail. I don't see how
Speaker 1: he's actually interacting with voters. I can't tell how much
Speaker 1: the image of him as this like super awkward dude
Speaker 1: who you know, has these strange interactions with people. I
Speaker 1: can't tell how much of that is real and how
Speaker 1: much of it is created. But it kind of doesn't matter,
Speaker 1: because that's the impression of him that has been made
Speaker 1: with a lot of people, and it's stuck, and it's
Speaker 1: certainly stuck with that group of donors that he would need,
Speaker 1: you know, their backing in order to make a credible
Speaker 1: run in twenty twenty eight. So oddly enough, even though
Speaker 1: DeSantis is the one actually in the race right now
Speaker 1: and has gotten so much national media attention and had
Speaker 1: the whole Fox News organization pulling for him. I would
Speaker 1: actually say Gavin Newsom is in some ways in a
Speaker 1: more powerful political position right now for the future and
Speaker 1: for representing the future of either of the two major parties.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you know, the thing is about Newsom. And look,
Speaker 2: I can't stand Newsom obviously. I think he's bad in
Speaker 2: many respects. And we'll talk a little bit about that
Speaker 2: just in a moment, about policy wise, his leadership under COVID,
Speaker 2: his sliminess and all that. He's a shape shifter is
Speaker 2: what he's savvy. You know, I see it when I
Speaker 2: call it like I see it. He did well on
Speaker 2: the Sean Hannity interview. He's got the shamelessness enough to
Speaker 2: be both like normy ish but also you know, to
Speaker 2: pander to the right coalitional basis. You know, it's not
Speaker 2: easy getting elected as the governor of the state of California.
Speaker 2: He survived the recall which he could easily run on.
Speaker 2: And you know a lot of Democrats they agree with
Speaker 2: Gavin Newsom, so I could I could definitely see a
Speaker 2: world where he was able to mount a success also,
Speaker 2: you know, he's probably more likable, and this is sad
Speaker 2: to say, than Kamala Harris, Pete Budajet. So if that's
Speaker 2: the bench, then yeah, I think, you know, given where
Speaker 2: he is, he could easily become a presidential contender in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty eight after Biden.
Speaker 1: For me, as a leftist, Newsom's record in California is
Speaker 1: very mixed. I think I would compare it favorably to like,
Speaker 1: you know, i'd prefer him to probably like definitely to
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris or Pete Bootaget. But as we're about to
Speaker 1: show you, I see him and DeSantis both as sort
Speaker 1: of similar, almost like mirror images. They're both very clearly ambitious,
Speaker 1: they're both very finger in the wind. You know, Desanta's
Speaker 1: positioned himself as this tea party small government guy when
Speaker 1: he's in the House and when that's the like thing
Speaker 1: of the day in the Republican Party, and now he's
Speaker 1: shifted to try to on this more populous rhetoric, etc.
Speaker 1: And try to have a break from that past. So
Speaker 1: you can see very much the way that he's trying
Speaker 1: to read the mood and trying to translate that into
Speaker 1: his political position is the same thing with Gavin news
Speaker 1: You know, he's real finger in the wind, you can see.
Speaker 1: And let's go out and transition now to talking about
Speaker 1: his latest move in the state of California, which is
Speaker 1: fascinating because Newsom coming up in California. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is a guy who was really a darling of Silicon
Speaker 1: Valley in the tech sector. And you know, a lot
Speaker 1: of fundraising in California, not just in California, a lot
Speaker 1: of the national fundraising the Democratic Party and some in
Speaker 1: the Republican Party too comes from Silicon Valley tech oligarchs, billionaires,
Speaker 1: et cetera. So he's been very closely tied with them.
Speaker 1: They've been very responsible for his rise. At the same time,
Speaker 1: he's now trying to position himself more on the progressive
Speaker 1: end of the spectrum and as a friend and ally
Speaker 1: of labor, which has also you know, supported him in
Speaker 1: many respects throughout his career. So put this up on
Speaker 1: the screen. There was a bill but overwhelming past the
Speaker 1: California legislature which would have required that autonomous trucks have
Speaker 1: a human being, an actual truck driver present in them.
Speaker 1: Of course, industry hates it, Silicon Valley hates it. But
Speaker 1: labor very much behind this, both out of safety concerns
Speaker 1: and also clearly out of job concerns, because if you
Speaker 1: actually move to a future where trucks are driven autonomously,
Speaker 1: you're talking about a lot of hundreds of thousands of
Speaker 1: jobs just in the state of California. So Teamster is
Speaker 1: very supportive of this bill, and, like I said, sailed
Speaker 1: through the California legislature by huge margins. But guess what. Newsome,
Speaker 1: caught in a tough spot between his Silicon Valley donors
Speaker 1: and between labor, decides to back you know who, the
Speaker 1: Silicon Valley donor. So he vetos this bill. It was
Speaker 1: vetoed Friday night. It would a band self driving trucks
Speaker 1: weighed more than ten thousand pounds, ranging from ups to
Speaker 1: evans to massive big rigs, from operating on public roads
Speaker 1: unless a human driver is on board. And let me
Speaker 1: tell you something, the Teamsters and their newly elected president
Speaker 1: are not having it. Put this up on the screen
Speaker 1: with what they had to say in response. This is
Speaker 1: Sean O'Brien. He says, Gavin Newsom doesn't have the guts
Speaker 1: to face working people. He'd rather give our jobs away
Speaker 1: in the dead of night. Late yesterday, the California Governor
Speaker 1: vetoed AB three sixteen that would have put human operators
Speaker 1: in autonomous vehicle, saving jobs and protecting communities. Go on,
Speaker 1: He says, ninety five percent bipartisan support in the legislature,
Speaker 1: seventy five percent public support, but Newsom still killed it.
Speaker 1: He's giving a green light to put these dangerous rigs
Speaker 1: on the road. And there's one more piece here. He says,
Speaker 1: any politician who turns their back on workers to curry
Speaker 1: campaign contributions for Corporate America and big tech, better square
Speaker 1: up teamsters will not walk away from this fight. Listen,
Speaker 1: maybe it's a small thing, but in this era when
Speaker 1: labor is so highly supported and so popular, and when
Speaker 1: American people are overwhelmingly backing workers and are very concerned
Speaker 1: about what these new technologies are going to mean for
Speaker 1: the workforce and for safety and for all of our future,
Speaker 1: that you're signing with the tech oligarchs in this moment
Speaker 1: is very telling and very troubling.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and also it comes on the heels of it. And
Speaker 2: it's funny because I had just told you guys about
Speaker 2: this before this video went viral. I was in Austin
Speaker 2: for Marshall's wedding, and while I was there, I had
Speaker 2: an Uber driver who was telling me. He's like, man,
Speaker 2: do you know anything about He knew who we were
Speaker 2: because of the show, and he's like, do you know anything
Speaker 2: about these self driving cars here in Austin. I said, no,
Speaker 2: I don't know anything about it, and she points out
Speaker 2: to me. He goes, yeah, one of these guys always
Speaker 2: hit me. One of these almost hit me yesterday. And
Speaker 2: he's like, by the way, when you're crossing the street,
Speaker 2: make sure you watch out because sometimes they don't watch
Speaker 2: pedestrians properly. And I was like, what this is crazy?
Speaker 2: And I started looking around. You could actually start to
Speaker 2: see it. Well, just yesterday a video has gone viral. Guys,
Speaker 2: let's go and put this up there on the screen
Speaker 2: and play it as I'm talking over it. These are
Speaker 2: all of these crews operated Chevy Bolts causing a massive
Speaker 2: traffic jam. They're autonomous self driving vehicles. And one man
Speaker 2: is going, quote, are you telling me they have no
Speaker 2: way to get out of this? For those who are watching,
Speaker 2: you can see they're just lined up car after car
Speaker 2: after car. They have no idea where they're going, and
Speaker 2: they are all over the city of Austin, in downtown,
Speaker 2: and it's one of those where, look, I'm a believer
Speaker 2: that we will maybe eventually get to the self driving technology,
Speaker 2: but having experienced some of it, been in some friends
Speaker 2: and tried multiple different variations, at this point, yeah, we're
Speaker 2: not there yet yet. I think we're at a point where,
Speaker 2: you know, autopilot on highways, I think we're there. I
Speaker 2: think we're there everywhere else, I don't think we're there
Speaker 2: at all, especially not on the city street and especially
Speaker 2: not Austin where the infrastructure is not ready for the
Speaker 2: population boom that there is right now. So I think
Speaker 2: it's a little bit crazy. But it gets really to
Speaker 2: what the bill was saying is just like, hey, we
Speaker 2: want to have human drivers right in the autonomous truck
Speaker 2: to make sure, just to make sure that in case
Speaker 2: anything goes wrong, just like in that video, that somebody
Speaker 2: can do it. Now, if you can prove over millions
Speaker 2: of miles, you know, and all that that that won't
Speaker 2: be the case, then fine, maybe we can have that conversation.
Speaker 2: But in the interim it's probably a good idea. And
Speaker 2: we're talking about freaking eighteen wheeler trucks here, on major highways.
Speaker 2: I mean, if one thing goes wrong, you can kill people.
Speaker 2: Oh you get something to get terribly wrong.
Speaker 1: Yeah, absolutely, And you know you just come to realize
Speaker 1: when you're thinking about it, they can get like ninety
Speaker 1: five percent of the way.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you can get pretty close.
Speaker 1: You can get pretty close, but that last five percent
Speaker 1: is really important, definite. All these little you know, think
Speaker 1: of how many unusual, unique situations that you would encounter
Speaker 1: on the road. I mean, actually, when we're driving into
Speaker 1: DC last night, had this there was like you know,
Speaker 1: some you have broken down in the middle of the
Speaker 1: road and there's a fire truck and there's a police
Speaker 1: officers in the middle, and you got to do something
Speaker 1: weird to go around them that you know was against
Speaker 1: the typical traffic laws, but that's what it was. Necessitated
Speaker 1: that situation. Like they can't deal with those sorts of
Speaker 1: novel situations or the way that human means actually drive
Speaker 1: versus like the technical like you always talk about the.
Speaker 2: Left turn, leftding left turns. It's not there yet, yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean, and I think it'll probably be a while
Speaker 1: before you can work out because those last pieces are
Speaker 1: so complex and really require like the human eye and
Speaker 1: understanding of the situation and be able to process these
Speaker 1: things that are novel. Situation.
Speaker 2: Let me give you the real nightmare scenario. You're in
Speaker 2: a bad situation. You got to go two ways. You're
Speaker 2: going to hit somebody either way. There's a kid on
Speaker 2: the left, there's old person on the right. Who's the
Speaker 2: AI hitting. It's like, well, that's that's a scary one
Speaker 2: in these morals. Now by the way, we would I mean,
Speaker 2: I wouldn't even make that. You know, you obviously break
Speaker 2: and you try as easy as possible, but somewhere somewhere
Speaker 2: that has to programmed. Yeah, it's like that is a
Speaker 2: terrifying one to even contemplate. And you know, or even
Speaker 2: in terms of spins, and I've even read or heard
Speaker 2: about people who like to mess with Tesla's when they're
Speaker 2: in autopilots and like go into their lane because the
Speaker 2: car instantly reacts. But it's not scary. And then also
Speaker 2: it doesn't necessarily compute potholes all that well, something that
Speaker 2: we have a lot of here in Washington, d C.
Speaker 2: So it's just there's so so many things and the
Speaker 2: chaos of everyday human life, of which we're just not
Speaker 2: there yet. Yeah, we're just not there.
Speaker 1: But the moral questions, I mean, that's that's not a
Speaker 1: technological fix. No, yeah, we have about like do you
Speaker 1: hit the dog or do you still crash?
Speaker 2: Yeah, there you go, you know, like point squirrel even exactly.
Speaker 1: I mean, these are situations that happen not uncommonly, and
Speaker 1: we're going to outsource our moral judgment to a computer
Speaker 1: designed by whoever.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: Scary scary future, very scary future that Gavin Newsom has
Speaker 1: now come down on the side of.
Speaker 2: Bombshell. New report from Michael Schellenberger over at Public his newsletter.
Speaker 2: He's done some great reporting on the subject, so I
Speaker 2: would definitely want to give him credit. Let's please go
Speaker 2: ahead and put this up there on the screen, and
Speaker 2: I'm going to read a little bit from his report. Quote.
Speaker 2: In August, shortly after the US government UFO whistleblower David
Speaker 2: Grush gave testimony to Congress about crash spacecraft and alien biologics.
Speaker 2: Many observers wonder how much credence to put into his testimony.
Speaker 2: Grush is just a single individual. The other individual individuals
Speaker 2: were just former Navy pilots, but at least thirty whistleblowers
Speaker 2: working for the federal government or government contractors have given
Speaker 2: testimony or a protected disclosure to the Office of the
Speaker 2: Intelligence Community Inspector General, the Defense Inspector General, and to
Speaker 2: Congress over the last several months. According to multiple sources
Speaker 2: now interviewed by public. When told whistleblowers had come forward
Speaker 2: to share this information, even skeptics the people like Mick
Speaker 2: West had said it'd be interesting. More people saying the
Speaker 2: same thing independently makes it more likely to be true.
Speaker 2: What they say is that this is all in the
Speaker 2: backdrop of a very confusing report Crystal that came out
Speaker 2: from the Inspector General that was made on September fifteenth.
Speaker 2: In that September fifteenth letter, the current Inspector General of
Speaker 2: the Intelligence Community appeared to deny that his office was
Speaker 2: investigating these claims. He said quote that the office has
Speaker 2: not conducted any audit, inspection evaluation review of alleged UAP
Speaker 2: programs within responsibility authority of the DNI. But the wording
Speaker 2: actually of his response gives him a lot of wiggle
Speaker 2: room of which this testimony now fits into, which is
Speaker 2: that the original official taxonomy quote for the ICIG activities
Speaker 2: include audits, investigations, inspections and reviews. It is then curious
Speaker 2: that an investigation is not being denied. So there's a
Speaker 2: lot of word salad that this all comes back into,
Speaker 2: but the very basic is what Schollenberger can report. More
Speaker 2: than thirty former or current officials have made classified disclosures
Speaker 2: to the Inspector General of both the DoD two con
Speaker 2: UNGRESS and through the intelligence community around some of these
Speaker 2: alleged programs and some of the details about what's actually
Speaker 2: happening here, you know, really go into some of what
Speaker 2: GRUSH has made claims around, both in terms of recovered
Speaker 2: craft quote unquote biologics, in terms of quote like kinetic
Speaker 2: incidents in some cases, you know, between these, between these
Speaker 2: alleged you know, how do I say it being's craft
Speaker 2: whatever people are saying, and I think it's just pretty extraordinary.
Speaker 2: The other one that I definitely want to highlight is
Speaker 2: this quote. Testimony has included both firs hand and secondhand
Speaker 2: reports of crash retrieval and reverse engineering programs by the
Speaker 2: United States, Russian and Chinese governments, the testing of materials
Speaker 2: obtained from retrieve craft, active and ongoing government disinformation operations,
Speaker 2: kinetic military action with UAP's AKA shootdown or tried shootdown,
Speaker 2: and contact collaboration with quote non human intelligence, and the
Speaker 2: successful reverse engineering of a triangle shape craft with unconventional propulsion.
Speaker 2: So some more interesting reporting there coming out from Michael Schellenberger.
Speaker 2: And before everybody says like show it to me, I agree, listen,
Speaker 2: show it to me. I want to see it too.
Speaker 2: I want to see him come before Congress. But don't
Speaker 2: forget we're seeing a major stonewalling right now in Congress.
Speaker 2: Congressman Tim Burchett and a Paulina Luna. They've said we
Speaker 2: will have another hearing all of that, that's what they've
Speaker 2: been granted, but they still have not been given the
Speaker 2: special compartmentalized access to be given a classified briefing Guy Grush,
Speaker 2: which it doesn't make any sense to me. I've spoken
Speaker 2: now with people on the Hill and I'm like, if
Speaker 2: you're a normal congressman, like, why is it so hard
Speaker 2: to just book a special compartmentalized facility to get a briefing.
Speaker 2: And they're like, well, if it had to do with
Speaker 2: iron or something like that, you could get it done easily.
Speaker 2: But they keep getting denied access and it's all up
Speaker 2: to the House Intelligence Community Committee which apparently doesn't want
Speaker 2: anything to do with this, so a whole there's a
Speaker 2: lot of crazy stuff that's going on behind the scenes.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's very If this is true and you've
Speaker 1: got thirty to fifty more whistleblowers who are corroborating some
Speaker 1: aspects of the story, obviously anyone would have to look
Speaker 1: at that and say that's very interesting. Of course, is
Speaker 1: there a sager Do we have any expectation of when
Speaker 1: we'll learn more about what these whistleblowers are saying, because
Speaker 1: the information here is very vague about what pieces of
Speaker 1: the story they're corroborating, whether it's actual you know, the
Speaker 1: craft retrieval programs, et cetera, or whether it is wrongdoing
Speaker 1: within this program, which may not be indicative of anything
Speaker 1: with regard to extra trustrial life.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's one of those where the disclosure can
Speaker 2: only come through an open forum, and the only open
Speaker 2: forum that we currently have is Congress, and Congress needs
Speaker 2: to do more of what they did with Grush. One
Speaker 2: of the reasons why I love that hearing is, look,
Speaker 2: it's all under oath. If he lied, I'll be the
Speaker 2: first one to prosecute him, all right, throw his ass
Speaker 2: in jail because he wasted my time and he wasted
Speaker 2: the American people's times. He said all this stuff under oath.
Speaker 2: Now let's get to the point of well, did he
Speaker 2: lie did he not lie? Let's get to the investigation
Speaker 2: of the Inspector General community. And also in terms of
Speaker 2: the way that all of these come out, the parsing
Speaker 2: of the language, they always try and emphasize one thing,
Speaker 2: there's nothing going on behind the scenes, this is all crap,
Speaker 2: But they always leave themselves room for no real explicit
Speaker 2: denial of what's happening. And I just have to recall
Speaker 2: that when Grush came forward his claims, I'm not saying
Speaker 2: they were vetted by the Inspector General, but they called
Speaker 2: them urgent and credible. His allegations that were made. He's
Speaker 2: now spoken out. He's did a big documentary with some
Speaker 2: of the Yes Theory guys. I recommend people go and
Speaker 2: listen to it if you're interested. But what I'm looking
Speaker 2: for is not just David Grush. I mean to me,
Speaker 2: you know, no offense to him. I think he's, you know,
Speaker 2: courageous man for coming forward. But it's not about him.
Speaker 2: It's about the claim, whether it's true, and whether there
Speaker 2: are multiple other people who can corroborate it. So Shallenberger,
Speaker 2: I mean, was one of the first to also report
Speaker 2: after Grush came forward about some of what was going on.
Speaker 2: He's a knowledgeable source and his reporting has not been denied,
Speaker 2: you know, by people inside of the intelligence community, by
Speaker 2: the DD Inspector General. They always fall back on the
Speaker 2: same thing, like with the bs NASA conference, We've got
Speaker 2: no evidence of extraterrestrial life. It's like, yeah, but you're
Speaker 2: admitting in an open form you have no idea what
Speaker 2: any of this stuff is. You have no clue. And
Speaker 2: it's like, well, yeah, you have no evidence that it is.
Speaker 2: You got no evidence that it Isn't you just have
Speaker 2: no evidence period because you don't know what the hell
Speaker 2: is going on. And obviously I want to believe, but
Speaker 2: I'm keeping my skeptics hat on. As everyone saw with
Speaker 2: the Aliens incident, the body on this one, I just
Speaker 2: want more people to come forward in a public setting,
Speaker 2: and ultimately it just comes down to programs like ours
Speaker 2: educating people so that they can pressure Congress. I mean,
Speaker 2: one thing that I will say about the public pressure
Speaker 2: when I showed up to that UFO hearing. I was stuck.
Speaker 2: There were there was only thirty seats for the public.
Speaker 2: Hundreds of people lined up out of the back. The
Speaker 2: staffers told me they had not seen public participation or
Speaker 2: enthusiasm for hearing like that since the wreaking Muller report
Speaker 2: in twenty seventeen. And there's a very different crowd. Some
Speaker 2: guys that I met there. Burchette even talked about this.
Speaker 2: One guy flew all the way from Belgium just to
Speaker 2: attend this hearing. Like people are really interested, really in
Speaker 2: the subject. So yeah, I know, I personally I wouldn't
Speaker 2: do it, but hey, you know, Belgium's a boring country.
Speaker 2: No offense. It's very beautiful, don't get me wrong. Good chocolate, Yeah,
Speaker 2: good chocolate, good fries freaks as they call them, so beautiful.
Speaker 2: I didn't truy the I didn't have hot chocolate. It
Speaker 2: was delicious. Antwerp, by the way, one of the most
Speaker 2: beautiful cities have ever been. To shout out to Antwerp.
Speaker 2: But my point though, is that immense public pressure and
Speaker 2: public interest. It's something these politicians and no offense. I
Speaker 2: think Burchett is a believer, but the rest of them,
Speaker 2: I don't care. They don't care either way, but they
Speaker 2: see that the public is animated and interested, and so
Speaker 2: I think it was a big wake up call for
Speaker 2: many of the people, at least anecdotally from what I
Speaker 2: saw when I was in the room, many of the
Speaker 2: people who were in Congress were stunned at the amount
Speaker 2: of attention that people were that they were receiving of.
Speaker 2: Just I mean, Burchick was agreed to, like a select
Speaker 2: use taking freaking selfies with them. So play a little
Speaker 2: bit to their vanity, you know, make it politically beneficial
Speaker 2: to them to push for investigation. And because a lot
Speaker 2: of the powers that be behind the scenes, like I said,
Speaker 2: the House Intelligence Community and a committee and others, they're
Speaker 2: trying to quash this stuff. And so if you show
Speaker 2: them that it's undeniable and that we have to have
Speaker 2: more disclosure, more people under oath, and to just talk
Speaker 2: about it in an open public setting and form and
Speaker 2: get real yes or no answers to our questions, that's
Speaker 2: how we move forward and actually have a path to
Speaker 2: real transparency, which is what our goal should be. Indeed, Okay,
Speaker 2: let's talk about the podcast.
Speaker 1: So really fascinating story about how two podcasters and their
Speaker 1: attempt to launch this new show have run straight up
Speaker 1: against some Biden era policy with regard to his efforts
Speaker 1: to end noncompete clauses. Put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: Great report from Jeff stinerver the Washington Post. The headline
Speaker 1: here is their podcast is in trouble. A Biden led
Speaker 1: crackdown may save them. So the backstory here these two gentlemen,
Speaker 1: Dan McDowell and Jake Kemp is they had a radio
Speaker 1: show that was really super popular in Texas. They worked
Speaker 1: for Cumulus Media and they couldn't come to terms on
Speaker 1: new contracts, so they left and they decided to launch
Speaker 1: their own podcast called The Dumb Zone. Well, lo and behold,
Speaker 1: Cumulus Media sent them a letter that said, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: you have a six month non compete. You cannot start
Speaker 1: this other podcast. Basically you can't work at all for
Speaker 1: that six month period because of this non compete. Well,
Speaker 1: as I mentioned before, the Biden administration is trying to
Speaker 1: end the abuse of these non compete agreements. Back in May,
Speaker 1: when of President Biden's appointees from the NLRB published legal
Speaker 1: guidance finding that overly broad non compete agreements violate federal
Speaker 1: labor law, and so they are going to court to
Speaker 1: challenge this non compete from Cumulus Media, and it could
Speaker 1: end up being the case that really ends a lot
Speaker 1: of over really broad and non competes that have taken
Speaker 1: hold in massive ways on our economy. They had the
Speaker 1: estimate here of just how much of our economy is
Speaker 1: governed now by non competes, and it's a huge percentage
Speaker 1: of the workforce for things that are insane, like we've
Speaker 1: talked Soger before about like sandwich makers that are being
Speaker 1: supposedly governed by non competes. I mean industries where this
Speaker 1: makes no sense at all, because the original idea is
Speaker 1: if you are privy to trade secrets, then potentially it
Speaker 1: makes sense. But it's just gotten wildly on PA.
Speaker 2: I have it here in front of me. Roughly thirty
Speaker 2: million workers collectively lose three hundred billion dollars a year
Speaker 2: in wages because of non compete agreements, according to the
Speaker 2: Federal Trade Commission, and currently eighteen percent of the entire
Speaker 2: labor market is currently governed by a non compete agreement.
Speaker 2: It's total and complete BS. Now, look, we are not
Speaker 2: saying here you should be able to walk out. Let's
Speaker 2: say you're a lawyer. You can't walk out with the
Speaker 2: client list, for example, and just say like in terms
Speaker 2: of proprietary information. But what should stop you, though, from
Speaker 2: leaving and then going to the client and be like, Hey,
Speaker 2: I think that I could provide you a better service.
Speaker 2: What's wrong with that? If you if it's up to
Speaker 2: the client, and it's up to you, if you think
Speaker 2: you could provide a better service, then godspeed. And you
Speaker 2: know this one, maybe this one is just a little
Speaker 2: too personal, Crystal, because we quite literally had to suffer
Speaker 2: the list. I mean, I think people should understand. You know,
Speaker 2: it's not just white collar workers or people like us.
Speaker 2: Oh feel bad for the podcasters. There are millions of
Speaker 2: people who are governed by this and are held and
Speaker 2: basically forced to work against their will. You and I
Speaker 2: not to go too into the scenes, we're quite literally
Speaker 2: forced to work against our will as part of some
Speaker 2: negotiations and work a place that we did not want
Speaker 2: to be at in order to make sure that we
Speaker 2: were not subject to these ridiculous non compete agreement. And
Speaker 2: one of the reasons why you know this is such
Speaker 2: a ridiculous one is, Crystal, they're basically claiming that they
Speaker 2: were not allowed to work for six straight months after
Speaker 2: not even signing a new contract. It's not like they left,
Speaker 2: they didn't come to a new agreement. And now they're
Speaker 2: being sued in court and putting this to a test.
Speaker 2: So you know, by the way, shout out to my
Speaker 2: friend Akash saying he actually put me in touch with
Speaker 2: these gentlemen. He's a friend of theirs. He's one of
Speaker 2: the ones who encouraged them in order to go public.
Speaker 2: So all of us do kind of a band and
Speaker 2: stick together. But you know, the point is that these
Speaker 2: gents have the absolute right, in my opinion, to be
Speaker 2: able to leave and to continue the show of which
Speaker 2: the intellectual property had nothing to do with the cumulous media.
Speaker 2: It had to do with their content, as you and
Speaker 2: I have discovered over here at breaking points, rebuilding a
Speaker 2: channel from zero to a million in just the span
Speaker 2: of two years. It's because it was about me and
Speaker 2: it was about you, and it wasn't really about whatever
Speaker 2: we were doing over whatever the Hill was giving us
Speaker 2: at that time. And that's why it's really about the
Speaker 2: empowerment to the overall individual citizen that corporations do not
Speaker 2: own you, even after you were under contract with them.
Speaker 2: The entire idea actually is very dirty and gross history
Speaker 2: spanning back to indentured servitude and when we had no
Speaker 2: labor rights in the seventeen nineties. The idea that you know,
Speaker 2: you owe me your labor and then I can even
Speaker 2: control where you go work afterwards because of the trade
Speaker 2: secrets and all that. We need to get away from this.
Speaker 2: This is very patrician nonsense.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and this is I mean, this is a genuinely
Speaker 1: good direction that the Biden NLRB and actually the FTC,
Speaker 1: the Federal Trade Commission has also under Biden moved in
Speaker 1: the same direction. But it's going to, apparently for some reason,
Speaker 1: take longer for them to issue their guidance. But apparently
Speaker 1: there was a sort of dispute under the Obama administration
Speaker 1: between Obama and Biden, and you know, various factions within
Speaker 1: the administration about this same issue, and Obama came down
Speaker 1: on the side of that. I don't know if we
Speaker 1: can really limit these things. Biden has been really clear.
Speaker 1: He gave a speech several years back before he was
Speaker 1: in the White House about how he saw this as
Speaker 1: you know, a violation of federal law. And now the
Speaker 1: people that he's put in place in the administration have
Speaker 1: attempted to make good on it. Matt Brunnig, who's the
Speaker 1: founder of the People's Policy Project and also a labor attorney,
Speaker 1: he's the one who actually filed the host's petition to
Speaker 1: the Natural Labor Relations Board to try to uphold this
Speaker 1: guidance about the non compete clause, and he says, listen
Speaker 1: if the NLRB finds in their favor, because the courts
Speaker 1: are supposed to defer to the NLRB's judgment on issues
Speaker 1: such as this. He says, there's nothing to stop everyone
Speaker 1: else in the country with a noncompete clause from doing
Speaker 1: the same thing, because at that point, all you have
Speaker 1: to do is quit your job. Point to the NLRB case,
Speaker 1: and you are golden. He also said that this particular
Speaker 1: suit against the hosts of The Dumb Zone from Cumulus
Speaker 1: Media perfectly reflects the kind of corporate overreach the nrb's
Speaker 1: guidances intended to stop. Quote their contract clauses make it
Speaker 1: so these guys have no outside option. They cannot really
Speaker 1: leave the employer without facing huge legal backlash. You're bound
Speaker 1: to the employer, and you effectively cannot leave without their permission,
Speaker 1: And that is so incredibly important to focus on because
Speaker 1: think of how much mon popoly consolidation that we've had,
Speaker 1: especially in the media space, but in so many sectors.
Speaker 1: So if you have no other option, you can't go
Speaker 1: to a competitor. There are barely any competitors. You can't
Speaker 1: hang up your own shingle, as these guys did with
Speaker 1: their own you know, individual podcasts, which, by the way,
Speaker 1: the appears to have been pretty successful for them. They're
Speaker 1: doing well. It sounds like a funny podcast. I've never
Speaker 1: listened to it, but yea, yeah, I don't really sound
Speaker 1: charming and very sports those stories for culture whatever.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but if vouches for them, then I'll I might
Speaker 2: check it out.
Speaker 1: Actually, But anyway, the point is, you leave these people
Speaker 1: with no options, like you keep them locked up in
Speaker 1: it is sort of a form of modern indentured servitude.
Speaker 1: You keep them completely locked up. So if they're able
Speaker 1: to succeed and NLRB backs their case, that is a
Speaker 1: game changer for millions and millions of workers who are
Speaker 1: dealing with very similar issues, whether they're at a sandwich
Speaker 1: shop or podcast hosts, or wherever they may be in
Speaker 1: the workforce.
Speaker 2: And also, guys, if you support independent media or the
Speaker 2: ability to consume the content at your own choice, this
Speaker 2: is an important case for you because there are millions,
Speaker 2: There are lots of people who work in these media
Speaker 2: organizations who are tied like down to the stake at
Speaker 2: these corporations because they own I mean, even look at
Speaker 2: the Tucker case, look at the way that they're able
Speaker 2: to that. There's a reason this shows only on Twitter,
Speaker 2: that's the only place that you can post without being
Speaker 2: in technical violation well content. Yeah, and even that, they're
Speaker 2: still trying to sue them. And there's all sorts of
Speaker 2: behind the scenes stuff like if you are not working
Speaker 2: somewhere else, they should not be able to control what
Speaker 2: you are doing. And even if they get you to
Speaker 2: sign it because you know, bonuses or whatever, like these
Speaker 2: things should not be enforceable. And if we can keep
Speaker 2: this at the national level, it will free up a
Speaker 2: lot of people. And it's one of the last tools
Speaker 2: establishment media really has over the people because they control
Speaker 2: the means of distribution. But if we can kill it,
Speaker 2: then you know, future people like us don't have to
Speaker 2: deal with that. It was a real headache. It cost
Speaker 2: us a lot of money.
Speaker 1: Would be really huge. All right, tccer, what are you
Speaker 1: looking at?
Speaker 2: Well? The Ukraine War is dragged on for nearly two
Speaker 2: years now. It's easy to forget how ubiquitous the support
Speaker 2: for AID was at the time. Poll after poll showed
Speaker 2: Americans willing to pay higher gas prices, sustain major supply
Speaker 2: chain shock and hurt American interests in the short term
Speaker 2: as long as it meant helping Ukraine. And within that
Speaker 2: debate was a big fight that I had with many
Speaker 2: about the nature of bipartisanship and the priorities for American
Speaker 2: politicians and much of our media class. I would classify
Speaker 2: many of these people as Ukraine firsters, meaning that their
Speaker 2: chief agenda is Ukrainian sovereignty, with many American interests secondary.
Speaker 2: My challenge at that time was the baby formula crisis.
Speaker 2: For example, it was sweeping the nation, and I sat
Speaker 2: in one debate. I believed absolutely that most American elites
Speaker 2: cared far more about Ukraine than they did about Americans
Speaker 2: getting baby formula. The argument was that we can care
Speaker 2: about both, and what I've always said, show me what
Speaker 2: gets effortless bipartisanship and is spent without question, and I
Speaker 2: will show you where power really lies. We have an
Speaker 2: easy answer, I think, to those questions. Two years into
Speaker 2: this war, American politicians and most of the American commentariat
Speaker 2: are Ukraine firsts, perhaps even more than we thought. In
Speaker 2: the midst of a major fight about a government shutdown, quietly,
Speaker 2: behind the scenes, machinations have been made. The Pentagon has
Speaker 2: ensured Ukrainian aid will not be touched secretly without any
Speaker 2: congressional authorization. The Pentagon has made a new change to
Speaker 2: its rules through bureaucratic trickery. The Pentagon has internally decided
Speaker 2: any Ukraine operation will be exempt from a potential government shutdown,
Speaker 2: meaning the quote key training and other activities in supportive
Speaker 2: Kiev will move ahead uninterrupted, which means, in plain English,
Speaker 2: if a government shuts down, millions of everyday American citizens
Speaker 2: will not get a paycheck, veterans will not get benefits,
Speaker 2: services for all of us will diminish. But people in
Speaker 2: Kiev they're gonna get paid. You can't even make it up.
Speaker 2: Who they decide to pay even when they don't have
Speaker 2: the constitutional authority to do so shows you who our
Speaker 2: government really cares the most about, and it's decidedly Ukraine.
Speaker 2: Sixty minutes invertently revealed to the historic degree to which
Speaker 2: the United States is not only propping up Ukraine's military,
Speaker 2: but as backstopping their entire economy and civil society. Take
Speaker 2: a listen to some of the stuff they found that
Speaker 2: were funding over there.
Speaker 9: American taxpayers are financing more than just weapons. We discovered
Speaker 9: the US governments buying seeds and fertilizer for Ukrainian farmers
Speaker 9: and covering the salaries of Ukraine's first responders, all fifty
Speaker 9: seven thousand of them. That includes the team that trains
Speaker 9: this rescue dog named Joy to comb through the wreckage
Speaker 9: of Russian strikes looking for survivors. And the US also
Speaker 9: funds the divers who we saw clearing unexploded ammunition from
Speaker 9: the country's rivers to make them safe again for swimming
Speaker 9: and fishing. Russia's invasions shrank Ukraine's economy by about a third.
Speaker 9: We were surprised to that to keep it afloat, the
Speaker 9: US government is subsidizing small businesses, so.
Speaker 2: The US government is funding every single first responder in Ukraine.
Speaker 2: The US government is buying all the seeds and fertilizer
Speaker 2: for their farmers. What they leave out there about that
Speaker 2: small business, by the way, is that it's funding one woman,
Speaker 2: for example, a woman named Tatiana Abromova, she has a
Speaker 2: nitwear company. She's a small shop in Kiev who US
Speaker 2: government officials have assisted in keeping afloat and have even
Speaker 2: helped her find new customers overseas. It must be nice
Speaker 2: to be a Ukrainian nitwear company. I know a lot
Speaker 2: of people over here who would love it if the
Speaker 2: government paid their bills and then found them customers. As
Speaker 2: a small business owner myself with Crystal, I cannot tell
Speaker 2: you how much time we spend making sure our finances
Speaker 2: are straight, payroll, making sure it runs properly. The trains
Speaker 2: have to run on time. In many ways, it's even
Speaker 2: harder than doing the show every day. I know farmers too.
Speaker 2: They struggle on the knife's edge of making their mortgage payments,
Speaker 2: and they battle with big grain companies over seas and fertilizer. Meanwhile,
Speaker 2: those in Kiev don't have to worry about anything. The
Speaker 2: government has got their back, our government. Perhaps some of
Speaker 2: this sounds callous, and I really don't want it to.
Speaker 2: I'm not opposed to aid to Ukraine, only within reason
Speaker 2: which advances our interests At this moment, we are not
Speaker 2: only backstopping their entire military, we are backstopping their entire
Speaker 2: civil society. Biden and Establishment Republicans they say we're going
Speaker 2: to back Ukraine as long as it takes. It's clear
Speaker 2: that means not only do the weapons have to flow,
Speaker 2: putting us in danger of perhaps embroiling into a larger
Speaker 2: war with Russia, but we've got to backstop their whole
Speaker 2: civil society for the foreseeable future. Does that seem fair
Speaker 2: to you or does it seem like we've done our
Speaker 2: part now? If Europe wants to step up, and they
Speaker 2: can be our guest if they want to pay these
Speaker 2: people's bills. But with the US the farthest away and
Speaker 2: the least at stake, shouldn't we have to pay? Why
Speaker 2: should we have to pay the vast majority of these countries' bills.
Speaker 2: Recently there was a concerted campaign to full the American
Speaker 2: public with talk of how the Europeans have overtaken the
Speaker 2: US in aid to Ukraine. And that's a fun talking point.
Speaker 2: It happens to also be totally false. They do this
Speaker 2: by focusing on non military aid commitments over many years,
Speaker 2: which the governments have pledged to spend but have not
Speaker 2: appropriated and not actually spend. When you take that away,
Speaker 2: what do you find? Shocker turns out the US has
Speaker 2: provided the vast, vast majority of all military aid, the
Speaker 2: only one that also matters. Also, even whenever you take
Speaker 2: away the so called EU classification and you look at
Speaker 2: it by country guests who still provide in the vast
Speaker 2: majority of a to Ukraine, you guessed it us. The
Speaker 2: amount of this side that we have dispersed is vastly
Speaker 2: disproportionate to our actual interests, and worse, is honestly feeding
Speaker 2: unrealistic expectations in Kiev. Do they just expect us to
Speaker 2: pay these nitmakers bills forever, even after the war is over?
Speaker 2: The answer is probably at this point yes, And the
Speaker 2: secret answer from US politicians to that question is also yes.
Speaker 2: I mean, how crazy is that we're paying this nue.
Speaker 1: And if you want to hear my reaction to Sager's monologue,
Speaker 1: become a premium subscriber today at breakingpoints dot com.
Speaker 2: What are you taking a look at? Crystal?
Speaker 1: As you guys know, Joe Biden will join the picket
Speaker 1: lines with autoworkers today in what is an extraordinary move
Speaker 1: as far as labor historians can tell, this is the
Speaker 1: first time in the history of the nation that a
Speaker 1: sitting president has actually joined an act to strike, a
Speaker 1: sign of how rapidly the politics around labor, corporate power,
Speaker 1: and unions have shifted in recent years.
Speaker 3: But it's also a.
Speaker 1: Little bit ironic because Biden's administration has been marked by
Speaker 1: tension with this very union over the nature of the
Speaker 1: electric vehicle transition. UAW President Sean Fain, unique among union leaders,
Speaker 1: has pointedly refused to endorse Biden's reelection pid over his
Speaker 1: failure to include wage and union requirements in the Inflation
Speaker 1: Reduction Act. Our partner Jordan Sheridan at Status Quo he
Speaker 1: recently asked Faine about exactly this issue. Take a listen.
Speaker 3: Do you need more for the Democratic Party aside from
Speaker 3: you know, talk and showing up when the cameras are here.
Speaker 10: Yeah, I mean, the proof's got to be in a putty.
Speaker 10: The proof's going to be in the work. I mean,
Speaker 10: and as you said, our endorsements are going to be earned.
Speaker 10: It would drive me nuts as a worker to just
Speaker 10: watch sometimes we just endorse people and there's really no
Speaker 10: body of work behind that, and we can't be taken
Speaker 10: for granted. No more, workers shouldn't allow themselves to be
Speaker 10: taken for granted. And so, you know, there's a lot
Speaker 10: of things going on in this economy, and there's a
Speaker 10: lot of things with the ev transition. I mean, we're
Speaker 10: not against a green economy. I mean we got to
Speaker 10: have clean air, we got to have clean water. You know,
Speaker 10: we've got to have a world for people to live in,
Speaker 10: future generations to live on. But it's got to be
Speaker 10: a just transition where you know, labor is guys a seed,
Speaker 10: it's a table. You know, there's a lot of money,
Speaker 10: you know, with the IRA that was put in play
Speaker 10: with the government, a lot of our taxpayer dollars to
Speaker 10: help fund this transition. But again, like always, the corporations
Speaker 10: come with their hands out. There's always way the government
Speaker 10: finds a way to put money in their pockets, but
Speaker 10: labor gets left behind. Labor cannot continue to be left behind.
Speaker 10: And that's been our message to the White House, to
Speaker 10: Congress and to anyone that'll listen. And so you know,
Speaker 10: that's that's got to change.
Speaker 1: So i'd score the UAW stride is about two basic issues.
Speaker 1: Securing the present through increase wages, ending tears, increasing benefits,
Speaker 1: improving quality of life, and securing the future through protections
Speaker 1: against plant closures and locked in cost of living adjustments.
Speaker 1: And it is this future which is most threatened by
Speaker 1: an EV transition that would follow the standard neoliberal era playbook,
Speaker 1: in which new technology provides a fresh excuse to fire workers,
Speaker 1: offshore jobs and undercut wages. Trump was very savvy to
Speaker 1: pick up on this tension, seeks to cynically exploit it,
Speaker 1: even if he offers workers worse than nothing, because the
Speaker 1: EV transition really is the elephant in the room of
Speaker 1: this strike and of the future of the auto industry.
Speaker 1: And while it's not up for direct negotiations, the outcome
Speaker 1: of this strike could well determine whether this transition will
Speaker 1: in fact spark a blue collar rebirth or be yet
Speaker 1: another race to the bottom. So the first thing to
Speaker 1: understand here is that the EV transition is happening regardless
Speaker 1: of who's in the White House. It's really just a
Speaker 1: matter of timing. Here in the US, evs are still
Speaker 1: a relatively small percentage of the overall market, them growing
Speaker 1: at an astonishing clip in a two year time span
Speaker 1: between twenty twenty one and twenty twenty three, ev sales
Speaker 1: shot up by one hundred and forty seven percent. Here,
Speaker 1: Taesla is still by far the market leader, but other
Speaker 1: automakers like Ford and Chevy they've been shipping into their dominance,
Speaker 1: dropping them under sixty percent of the total market for
Speaker 1: the first time ever. But in some ways, to look
Speaker 1: just that, the US is really missed the big picture.
Speaker 1: Global sales of EV's have absolutely exploded. Last year saw
Speaker 1: sales of ten million electric cars worldwide are expected to
Speaker 1: spike another thirty five percent just this year. That means
Speaker 1: electric vehicles will jump from only four percent of the
Speaker 1: new car market in twenty twenty to eighteen percent this year.
Speaker 1: Those sales are led by China, which has aggressively incentivized
Speaker 1: development and provided consumer subsidies to try to make the
Speaker 1: cars more affordable. The Big three they see the writing
Speaker 1: on the wall, and even before the Biden ARRA incentives,
Speaker 1: had begun investing billions into this new market. GM wants
Speaker 1: to completely switch over to EV's by twenty thirty five.
Speaker 1: Ford once half of all their sales to be elected
Speaker 1: by twenty thirty now. Biden is working aggressively to speed
Speaker 1: this transition, but his policies have been woefully incomplete. Effectively,
Speaker 1: you got to deliver here for three groups, consumers, workers,
Speaker 1: and automakers. Inflation Reduction Act only fully delivers for one
Speaker 1: of these groups, and it will not surprise you which one.
Speaker 1: In classic DC fashion, the giant corporations got taken care
Speaker 1: of most fully with generous incentives. This industrial policy is
Speaker 1: already having a huge impact with North America's surging to
Speaker 1: become the fastest growing EV battery hub. Meanwhile, the consumers
Speaker 1: and workers are getting half a glass at best. Consumers
Speaker 1: get a seventy five hundred dollars credit on certain EV models,
Speaker 1: but that is still not enough to offset the initial
Speaker 1: price difference. And the government is tackling the biggest pain
Speaker 1: point for EV drivers, the lack of charging stations, through
Speaker 1: funds to build around five hundred thousand new chargers nationwide. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: experts estimate we actually need more like two million new
Speaker 1: charging stations. In terms of workers, the automaker incentives do
Speaker 1: require jobs to be kept in the US, so those
Speaker 1: provisions do protect workers from offshoring, but there are no
Speaker 1: direct requirements on wages, benefits, or unions, a betrayal of
Speaker 1: Biden's stated desire to be a truly pro union president
Speaker 1: goes without saying that Trump and Republicans plan to do
Speaker 1: nothing on evs and to continue union busting, which will
Speaker 1: virtually guarantee that this industry and its associated jobs will
Speaker 1: be offshore, and that any plans which happen to spring
Speaker 1: up here will suffer from low wages and dangerous conditions.
Speaker 1: Hardly an appealing alternative. But there's nothing strikers can do
Speaker 1: directly about the EV transition. That doesn't mean the strike
Speaker 1: is irrelevant to EV unionizing and wages. Just imagine that
Speaker 1: you work at Tesla and you're watching all of this unfold. Currently,
Speaker 1: non union Tesla spends about forty five dollars per hour
Speaker 1: on wages and benefits altogether for their workers. That's as
Speaker 1: opposed to sixty six dollars right now per hour for
Speaker 1: the Big Three. So if you work at Tesla, you
Speaker 1: are already on the short end of the stick, but
Speaker 1: you're about to watch people who do the very same
Speaker 1: job as you get a double digit pay increase along
Speaker 1: with better benefits and job protections, all because they are
Speaker 1: are in a union. And this administration has just significantly
Speaker 1: eased the path to unionize thanks to some key National
Speaker 1: Labor Relations Board decisions. You think workers at Tesla just
Speaker 1: going to sit back and accept getting dramatically underpaid versus
Speaker 1: their competitors. They're either going to unionize or Eline's going
Speaker 1: to have to cough up a good bit more money
Speaker 1: to try to keep them from unionizing. Sustain with all
Speaker 1: the ev battery workers and what is now an extremely
Speaker 1: hot industry here in this country, battery workers don't make
Speaker 1: anywhere close to what autoworkers are making right now, and
Speaker 1: they're routinely exposed to incredibly dangerous conditions thanks to working
Speaker 1: with some very hazardous materials. Jackman wrote a great article
Speaker 1: recently which documented how wage and safety concerns recently led
Speaker 1: a Lordstown GM battery facility to unionize. Those workers were
Speaker 1: being paid about sixteen dollars and fifty cents per hour
Speaker 1: to risk their health after being exposed to a toxic
Speaker 1: chemical spill on site. After that spill, they voted to
Speaker 1: join the UAW by a margin of seven hundred and
Speaker 1: ten to sixteen. There is to stop other battery workers
Speaker 1: from following suit. So as you're watching the auto workers strike,
Speaker 1: just remember it's not just their livelihoods which are on
Speaker 1: the line. The entire nature of the EV transition also
Speaker 1: hangs in the balance. Will it be just the latest
Speaker 1: way to screw workers, or will they be able to
Speaker 1: organize and secure a new middle class standard of living.
Speaker 1: The UAW has a chance here to show these workers
Speaker 1: that the benefits of unionizing outweighs the always present risk
Speaker 1: of going head to head with the bosses. And even
Speaker 1: as his EV policy has fallen short, believe me, having
Speaker 1: the President of the United States joining the strike and
Speaker 1: signaling that he'll have your back to that doesn't hurt either.
Speaker 1: And this is really the elephant in the room.
Speaker 2: And if you want to hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue,
Speaker 2: become a premium subscriber today at Breakingpoints dot com.
Speaker 1: A lot of government corruption in the news lately, which
Speaker 1: seems to be a unfortunately recurring experience. And we are
Speaker 1: joined by a great guest who is an expert on
Speaker 1: fighting government corruption. Robert Weissman is the president of Public
Speaker 1: Citizen and he's actually author of the new book Gun
Speaker 1: And put this up on the screen, the corporate sabotage
Speaker 1: of America's future, And I like this part. What we
Speaker 1: can do about it? Robert, welcome.
Speaker 2: Great to have you than it's great to be with you.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Absolutely, So what inspired you to write the book
Speaker 1: at this particular moment in time.
Speaker 3: You know, one thing I think is coming out of
Speaker 3: the Trump period, we've been so focused necessarily on fighting Trump,
Speaker 3: defending democracy, and preventing fascism, that we've turned away to
Speaker 3: some extent from the underlying factors in our society, the
Speaker 3: economy and our politics that got us here in the
Speaker 3: first place. We've also lost sight and all the focus
Speaker 3: on polarization relatedly on all the things we agree on.
Speaker 3: So at the end of the day, I think we
Speaker 3: have a problem of too much corporate power in America,
Speaker 3: and if you look at the polls, people across the
Speaker 3: political spectrum agree with that on issue after issue after
Speaker 3: issue and want to.
Speaker 4: Do something about it.
Speaker 2: Robert, you detail in the book you got chapters industry
Speaker 2: by industry. Can you outline some of the most egregious
Speaker 2: industries in the way that they influence policy here in
Speaker 2: Washington through effectively legalized corruption.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we look at big pharma, big tech, and big oil.
Speaker 3: If we start with big pharma, that's the industry with
Speaker 3: the most lobbyists in America probably the most lobbyists in
Speaker 3: the world. They have more than three lobbyists for every
Speaker 3: member of Congress. And they do that because they're so
Speaker 3: dependent on government support, dependent on government support for research
Speaker 3: and development. They're dependent on taking at a discount or
Speaker 3: for free the fruits of that government research and development,
Speaker 3: or dependent on the government to approve their products, or
Speaker 3: dependent on the government to purchase their products, and then
Speaker 3: depend on the government to protect their monopolies and purchase
Speaker 3: their products at too high a price. So we've seen
Speaker 3: the results of that political influence in each of those
Speaker 3: areas I'm talking and I've just talked about, including notably
Speaker 3: and probably the most corrupt deal in modern American history,
Speaker 3: where we created a Medicare drug program to provide pharmaceutical
Speaker 3: coverage for seniors, but we prohibited the government from negotiating
Speaker 3: with the drug companies over that.
Speaker 4: That's costing us on the order of five hundred billion
Speaker 4: dollars or the last over the next decade.
Speaker 3: We've saved about one hundred million of that from the
Speaker 3: provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act, but we got a
Speaker 3: long way to go.
Speaker 1: Yeah, talk a little bit about big oil, which is
Speaker 1: one of the other sectors that you really take into here.
Speaker 3: Well, Big Oil is perpetrated the greatest crime in the
Speaker 3: history of the world by denying the climate crisis for
Speaker 3: years and blocking action on it.
Speaker 4: We're living with that right now.
Speaker 3: Everybody's lived through disasters around the world this past year,
Speaker 3: and we're thinking about these things out of the norm,
Speaker 3: but they're actually going to be not just normal, but
Speaker 3: weak versions of the kind of chaos that we're going
Speaker 3: to experience in the coming decades. And it's not that
Speaker 3: we didn't know about this problem. In fact, Big Oil
Speaker 3: knew about the prospect of climate change probably before anyone else,
Speaker 3: certainly dating back to their corporate boardrooms in the nineteen seventies,
Speaker 3: and instead of saying, Okay, we're going to share this
Speaker 3: information and help the world figure out a way out
Speaker 3: of this, they engage in a concerted effort over decades
Speaker 3: to deny the science and block action. We're still living
Speaker 3: with that right now in terms of their objection to
Speaker 3: moving forward to a clean energy future, and we're certainly
Speaker 3: living with the results of it every day.
Speaker 1: You know, one thing I was wondering from your perspective
Speaker 1: is we've been talking a lot about Bob Men Endez
Speaker 1: this week for obvious reasons. It stands accused of taking
Speaker 1: literal gold bars and having hundreds of thousands of dollars
Speaker 1: of cash stuffed in jackets with his own name on
Speaker 1: it from these Egyptian businessmen, effectively accused of selling out
Speaker 1: the country to the Egyptian government, exploiting his very powerful
Speaker 1: position as chair of the Foreign Relations Committee. It's very
Speaker 1: easy to look at those stories as one of personal failing,
Speaker 1: which certainly it is that. But do you see broader
Speaker 1: structure issues or is this about the people that are
Speaker 1: involved here?
Speaker 3: Well, I think the Menendez story is kind of a
Speaker 3: distinct one if the allegations are true. I don't think
Speaker 3: that kind of corruption normally goes on in Washington, DC.
Speaker 3: That's kind of like unsophisticated corruption. It's also not structural corruption.
Speaker 3: And the structural corruption is for sure far more powerful
Speaker 3: and consequential. It didn't start with the Citizens United decision
Speaker 3: in twenty ten, but it got way worse than that.
Speaker 3: Was the decision, of course from the Supreme Court that
Speaker 3: said companies could spend whatever they want to influence election outcomes.
Speaker 4: And we've all lived in the world since then.
Speaker 3: Everybody's familiar with it, but they're not probably familiar with
Speaker 3: exactly how bad it is. We have twenty five people
Speaker 3: who are responsible for half of all super pac spending,
Speaker 3: Just twenty five people. So not so long ago we
Speaker 3: call that a country described like that.
Speaker 4: A banana republic. That's the United States of America.
Speaker 2: So, Robert, you said, what we can do about it,
Speaker 2: give us some of the prescriptions in the book about
Speaker 2: how you can actually get to a more bipartisan and
Speaker 2: less corrupt future.
Speaker 4: Well, it is a bipartisan in that.
Speaker 3: I think again, as I said, if you look at
Speaker 3: people support for raising the minimum wage, taxing big corporations,
Speaker 3: cracking down on big tech, supporting anti monopoly policy, lowering
Speaker 3: drug prices, issue after issue, you're seeing seventy.
Speaker 4: Eighty and even ninety percent support.
Speaker 3: I think the number one thing to do is to
Speaker 3: deal with campaign finance, to overturn citizens United and have
Speaker 3: a system of public financing or small donor financing of
Speaker 3: our public elections. We've got to deal with regulatory captures,
Speaker 3: so the regulatory agencies work for the public and not
Speaker 3: for the corporations they're regulating. We need an aggressive anti
Speaker 3: monopoly policy to break up the big companies and stop
Speaker 3: them from leveraging their political influence. We need to support
Speaker 3: labor unions, so we've got independent check on the power
Speaker 3: of big corporations by making it legal to organize an illegal,
Speaker 3: legitimately illegal to interfere with union organizing, and on down
Speaker 3: the line. There's a set of things. There is for
Speaker 3: sure no silver bullet to the problem of too much
Speaker 3: corporate power.
Speaker 1: My last question for you, Robert, is because I've been
Speaker 1: thinking about this one recently. You know, you name checked
Speaker 1: all of these policies that have massive support. You know,
Speaker 1: I could go through another list that has even like
Speaker 1: ninety percent level of support banning stock trading by members
Speaker 1: of Congress as one example, and yet anover happens because
Speaker 1: of exactly the structural factors that you're talking about. And
Speaker 1: it makes me question if we even live in a
Speaker 1: democracy at this point when the will of the people
Speaker 1: seems to matter really not at all.
Speaker 3: Well, the only answer is to organize into overwhelm big
Speaker 3: money power with people, organize people of power. You know,
Speaker 3: in that one example, there is a problem with stock trading.
Speaker 3: But we made some progress on stock trading my members
Speaker 3: of Congress in two thousand and seven. We have public
Speaker 3: citizens did a lot of work on that. We were
Speaker 3: banging our heads against the wall for a while. We
Speaker 3: got some media coverage, and all of a sudden people
Speaker 3: got outraged and Congress had no choice by to an
Speaker 3: act and meaningful reforms. Far too little as we see
Speaker 3: every day. But we made progress. And that's how we
Speaker 3: make progress every time. You take that example of the
Speaker 3: Medicare drug program, biggest rip off I think in modern
Speaker 3: American history, but we just clawed back one hundred billion
Speaker 3: dollars of that and the Inflation Reduction Act.
Speaker 4: Again, we should have gone for it all.
Speaker 3: So we didn't get everything we needed, but we got something,
Speaker 3: and that's because people rose up and demanded it and overcame,
Speaker 3: to some extent, the power of big Farma.
Speaker 2: All right, Well, a hopeful message. We appreciate you joining us, sir.
Speaker 4: Thank you, great to be with you.
Speaker 2: Thanks so much, absolutely, thank you guys so much for watching.
Speaker 2: We really appreciate it. We'll have the debate special for
Speaker 2: everybody tomorrow for prem subscribers. That drops today, and we'll
Speaker 2: have a great debate after action report. I guess you
Speaker 2: could call it on Thursday. We'll see you later.