Transcript

Mr. Hollen's Opus · Politix

0:00
If Republicans nuke the filibuster to pass a defense
0:05
supplemental to maintain an
0:07
SPEAKER_02: unpopular war in Iran,
0:10
SPEAKER_02: that's like a win-win.
0:11
SPEAKER_00: On the raw politics, yeah.
0:12
Because there's like not a world in which like Donald Trump is
0:15
body swapped with
0:15
SPEAKER_02: somebody who will make appropriate decisions.
0:17
What I'm saying is that could lead to the end of the world,
0:20
but our hands would be clean.
0:26
Hey,
0:26
everyone,
0:27
you're listening to a free preview of the Politics Podcast.
0:30
SPEAKER_01: This week,
0:30
we'll talk about a new and somewhat alarming fad among
0:33
ambitious Democrats who are
0:35
promising extremely broad tax cuts to workers that would make
0:39
expanding the safety
0:40
SPEAKER_01: net all but impossible.
0:42
SPEAKER_01: Then we'll do an update on Trump's Iran war debacle.
0:46
SPEAKER_01: If you want to hear the whole conversation,
0:47
SPEAKER_01: you can upgrade your subscription to paid at politics.fm.
0:55
SPEAKER_01: Hello, and welcome to the Politics Podcast.
0:57
SPEAKER_01: I'm Brian Boyler.
0:58
SPEAKER_01: I'm Matthew Glacius.
1:00
Do you have any Oscar takes before we get into a long and
1:03
boring conversation about
1:04
SPEAKER_01: fiscal policy?
1:05
SPEAKER_01: I feel like, you know, desserts first.
1:08
SPEAKER_02: Good tax Oscars.
1:12
SPEAKER_02: I don't know, it all seemed fine.
1:13
SPEAKER_02: I mean, I was saying, like, when I was young...
1:16
SPEAKER_02: You know,
1:17
I felt like Oscars would go to movies that seemed like stodgy
1:20
and lame and appealed
1:21
SPEAKER_02: to middle-aged people.
1:22
And I was like,
1:23
there's all these cool movies that are getting overlooked.
1:25
But now that I'm middle-aged,
1:26
they're just like giving them to movies that I like.
1:30
SPEAKER_02: So clearly what's happened is that the Academy has become way cooler.
1:33
SPEAKER_02: It's not that I've become middle-aged.
1:35
SPEAKER_02: And it's like relatedly,
1:36
SPEAKER_02: like they're playing good songs like at Target now,
1:39
SPEAKER_02: you know,
1:40
SPEAKER_02: come in and shop.
1:41
SPEAKER_02: It's just bangers, you know?
1:42
SPEAKER_02: So that's how I feel.
1:44
SPEAKER_02: I feel like an old person.
1:46
I have a very not safe for work version of that same joke you
1:49
told about the
1:49
SPEAKER_00: Academy getting cooler,
1:51
SPEAKER_00: but I'll save it for the green room because it's super,
1:53
SPEAKER_00: super inappropriate.
1:54
SPEAKER_00: Okay.
1:56
SPEAKER_01: Just remind me when we're done.
1:58
SPEAKER_02: Gotta watch yourself, you know?
1:59
SPEAKER_01: This is... It's not really cancelable.
2:02
SPEAKER_01: It's just...
2:04
SPEAKER_02: You're, you're supposed to be the progressive on this pod.
2:06
SPEAKER_02: So you gotta, you gotta, you gotta hue to the state.
2:09
SPEAKER_01: That's why I was so disappointed that Sinners got, got snubbed.
2:14
SPEAKER_02: Ah, well, you know, it was tough because like.
2:16
SPEAKER_02: Yeah, I know it was.
2:17
Because I think that one battle after another was like the more
2:21
woke movie in its content.
2:24
SPEAKER_02: Although giving it to the black movie is obviously.
2:28
SPEAKER_02: Well.
2:28
SPEAKER_02: In its way, well.
2:29
SPEAKER_02: So.
2:29
SPEAKER_02: This is the whole paradox of like black Democrats are more moderate.
2:34
SPEAKER_01: So I disagree with that,
2:36
SPEAKER_01: but I guess I could re-argue it around the horseshoe in that,
2:40
SPEAKER_01: like,
2:41
SPEAKER_01: I think that the message behind Sinners was,
2:44
SPEAKER_01: like,
2:45
SPEAKER_01: extremely left-wing to the point of being almost anti-liberal.
2:49
SPEAKER_01: And I still really liked the movie.
2:51
SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
2:51
SPEAKER_01: And I thought it was, like, invent—but, like—
2:53
SPEAKER_01: The essence of the cultural critique is that like multiculturalism,
2:58
SPEAKER_01: melting pot,
2:59
SPEAKER_01: blending of,
3:01
SPEAKER_01: you know,
3:01
SPEAKER_01: musical styles or people or whatever is worse than when it's segregated.
3:06
SPEAKER_01: And, you know, yes, you have a good time with your own people.
3:11
SPEAKER_01: And I don't actually think that that.
3:17
the people who made the movie believe this right like the the
3:20
music director for
3:21
the movie is a Norwegian guy who's really into the blues right
3:24
like so you know
3:25
it's not it like they don't nobody involved I think is so
3:30
invested in that idea
3:31
that they you know practice what they preach in real life like
3:35
Ryan Coogler is not
3:36
SPEAKER_01: some kind of like cultural segregationist but but that is like a you know
3:42
You have people on tips of the horseshoe who kind of see things
3:45
the same way.
3:46
SPEAKER_02: Okay.
3:47
SPEAKER_02: So now I'm going to be serious.
3:49
SPEAKER_02: So a long time ago,
3:50
Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote an essay about the black conservative
3:53
political tradition.
3:55
SPEAKER_02: Now,
3:55
SPEAKER_02: unfortunately,
3:56
SPEAKER_02: the like focal figure for this discussion is Bill Cosby,
4:00
SPEAKER_02: who like,
4:01
SPEAKER_02: you know,
4:02
SPEAKER_02: so you sort of got to,
4:04
SPEAKER_02: you have to read it generously to like get the point.
4:08
SPEAKER_02: But, you know, the point is,
4:10
SPEAKER_02: Yeah.
4:30
SPEAKER_02: But that,
4:30
SPEAKER_02: you know,
4:31
SPEAKER_02: also like internal to an ethnic community,
4:34
you can have people who are conservative in their like
4:38
dispositions and outlook and
4:39
SPEAKER_02: worldview,
4:40
SPEAKER_02: but because they are members of a minority group,
4:43
don't like affiliate with the nationalism of the ethnocultural
4:48
majority group.
4:50
SPEAKER_02: Right.
4:50
SPEAKER_02: And like,
4:51
SPEAKER_02: I don't think that's really what Ryan Kugler,
4:53
SPEAKER_02: it just,
4:54
SPEAKER_02: if you look at the lives of the filmmakers,
4:56
SPEAKER_02: like that,
4:57
SPEAKER_02: that doesn't really seem like what they think or do or act,
5:01
SPEAKER_02: but it's certainly the perspective of the film.
5:03
SPEAKER_02: Yes.
5:03
SPEAKER_02: Right.
5:03
Is that,
5:04
is that it's,
5:05
and you know,
5:05
and I think you,
5:06
you kind of see this in,
5:08
um,
5:10
SPEAKER_02: Other aspects of American politics where,
5:13
SPEAKER_02: you know,
5:14
SPEAKER_02: Zionism,
5:15
SPEAKER_02: like in Israel,
5:17
SPEAKER_02: is like a right-wing viewpoint,
5:19
SPEAKER_02: right,
5:19
SPEAKER_02: like of the Jewish majority of Israel.
5:22
But in the United States of America,
5:24
in the 1940s and 1950s,
5:26
Jews were a minority group.
5:29
SPEAKER_02: So like Jews were all on the left,
5:31
SPEAKER_02: but like pro-Israel was something that Jewish people believed.
5:35
believed in and it was like very incorporated into democratic
5:39
party politics for a long time.
5:41
SPEAKER_02: And,
5:42
SPEAKER_02: um,
5:43
skepticism of Israel was like associated with Republicans and
5:46
oil interests and so
5:47
SPEAKER_02: on and so forth.
5:48
SPEAKER_02: And there's been this like shift in the,
5:52
SPEAKER_02: not like the,
5:52
SPEAKER_02: the viewpoints necessarily,
5:54
SPEAKER_02: but in how it all plays politically in part,
5:57
SPEAKER_02: because we now have,
5:59
SPEAKER_02: um,
6:00
SPEAKER_02: much larger Muslim minority in the United States, right?
6:03
SPEAKER_02: Which,
6:03
SPEAKER_02: like,
6:03
SPEAKER_02: brings its,
6:04
SPEAKER_02: like,
6:04
opposite viewpoint of the foreign policy issue into the
6:08
perspective of the
6:09
SPEAKER_02: progressive coalition that,
6:11
SPEAKER_02: like,
6:11
SPEAKER_02: stands for all different minority groups and so on and so forth.
6:14
SPEAKER_02: But in both of these,
6:16
SPEAKER_02: right,
6:16
SPEAKER_02: like,
6:16
SPEAKER_02: both Israeli and Palestinian nationalism and Black nationalism,
6:20
SPEAKER_02: right,
6:20
SPEAKER_02: like,
6:20
SPEAKER_02: these are all kind of,
6:21
SPEAKER_02: like,
6:22
SPEAKER_02: right-wing,
6:23
SPEAKER_02: quote-unquote,
6:23
SPEAKER_02: viewpoints in their local contexts,
6:26
SPEAKER_02: right?
6:28
SPEAKER_02: that then,
6:28
SPEAKER_02: you know,
6:29
SPEAKER_02: aggregate up into,
6:30
SPEAKER_02: like,
6:30
SPEAKER_02: a white Christian country in ways that get different.
6:35
SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
6:36
SPEAKER_00: I think,
6:36
SPEAKER_00: like,
6:36
MAGA is having a hard time trying to assemble all of these
6:39
minority nationalisms
6:41
SPEAKER_00: under an umbrella of white nationalism.
6:42
SPEAKER_02: Yeah, they, like, sometimes pull it together.
6:45
SPEAKER_02: Like, but it's a lot easier when Joe Biden is president to just, like...
6:50
SPEAKER_02: grab different people who feel discontented with like Namby Pamby liberal
6:54
SPEAKER_02: cosmopolitanism than to have like a coherent,
6:57
SPEAKER_02: um,
6:58
SPEAKER_02: structure.
6:59
SPEAKER_02: So that's the Oscars.
7:01
SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
7:02
SPEAKER_01: And Corey Booker and Katie Porter.
7:04
SPEAKER_01: Um,
7:05
SPEAKER_02: Yeah.
7:06
So let me,
7:08
let me,
7:08
let me,
7:08
let me,
7:09
let me just like tee this up a little bit more elegantly.
7:11
SPEAKER_01: And then I will kick to you for like the specifics on their plans.
7:15
SPEAKER_01: And then we could talk about why they're bad ideas.
7:18
SPEAKER_01: So Cory Booker,
7:19
SPEAKER_01: Chris Van Hollen and Katie Porter,
7:21
SPEAKER_01: who's the former congresswoman who's running for governor in California.
7:24
They have each proposed very large tax cuts for medium and low
7:31
income earners.
7:35
SPEAKER_01: I guess also, you know,
7:37
SPEAKER_01: Somewhat you would consider like upper middle class earners.
7:40
SPEAKER_01: We'll get into this, yeah.
7:41
Yeah,
7:42
typically Democrats have proposed no tax increases below a
7:46
certain threshold.
7:46
SPEAKER_01: So like when I started covering Democrats, the threshold was $250,000.
7:53
SPEAKER_01: And fairly quickly, they bumped it to like $400,000.
7:58
SPEAKER_01: But the idea was just like, we're not gonna raise your taxes.
8:02
SPEAKER_01: Not we're gonna give you all a huge tax cut.
8:04
SPEAKER_01: The tax increases will only apply to people making...
8:07
SPEAKER_01: Half a million or more,
8:08
SPEAKER_01: a million or more billionaires,
8:10
SPEAKER_01: obviously a big focal point of democratic tax increase policy.
8:15
And but but now we have a shift where they're saying we're
8:18
going to give big tax
8:19
SPEAKER_01: cuts to people below the threshold.
8:21
SPEAKER_01: And this will this will pull well for obvious reasons.
8:25
But it's united,
8:26
I think,
8:27
typically warring factions of the Democratic Party.
8:31
in outrage over its unworkability and kind of like the threat
8:35
it poses to basically
8:37
SPEAKER_01: everyone's policy priorities other than,
8:40
SPEAKER_00: you know,
8:40
SPEAKER_00: the people who believe that if you make less than $200,000,
8:43
SPEAKER_00: you should pay no income tax.
8:47
SPEAKER_02: Yeah.
8:47
SPEAKER_02: So, okay.
8:48
SPEAKER_02: So let's talk about the details here.
8:50
So Tax Foundation has a good summary chart of both the Booker
8:55
and the Van Hollen plans.
8:57
SPEAKER_02: And one thing the chart makes clear is like the Booker plan is just nuts.
9:03
Both of these plans raise taxes on the very rich to cut taxes
9:07
on everyone else.
9:09
But Booker's plan raises taxes on the very rich less than Van
9:14
Hollen's plan does,
9:16
SPEAKER_02: but cuts taxes on everyone else much more.
9:19
SPEAKER_02: And also cuts taxes on a larger swath of people.
9:24
So like Van Hollen's plan cuts taxes on the bottom 80% and then
9:31
raises taxes on the top 1%.
9:32
SPEAKER_02: Booker's plan...
9:35
SPEAKER_02: Cuts taxes on everyone up to the top 1%.
9:40
SPEAKER_02: So he's just got like a multi-trillion dollar deficit hole.
9:44
SPEAKER_02: And I don't, I don't understand like what happened.
9:48
SPEAKER_02: Booker's also much more generous to the poor and stuff,
9:50
SPEAKER_02: but like his just numbers don't add up and it doesn't make any sense.
9:54
SPEAKER_02: So I got word of Van Hollen's plan.
9:57
SPEAKER_02: Booker's plan came out first,
9:59
but I heard about Van Hollen's plan earlier because Van Hollen
10:03
was lining up like
10:04
SPEAKER_02: support for his plan.
10:07
And the support for the plan is interesting and I think makes
10:10
it more significant
10:12
SPEAKER_02: because he's got a bunch of co-sponsors.
10:15
SPEAKER_02: And his list of co-sponsors includes,
10:20
SPEAKER_02: it includes Mark Kelly,
10:22
SPEAKER_02: who is,
10:22
SPEAKER_02: I think,
10:22
SPEAKER_02: the only co-sponsor who's like in a swing state.
10:27
Like the Democrats from Michigan,
10:30
Wisconsin,
10:31
Pennsylvania,
10:32
Georgia,
10:34
not on the plan.
10:35
SPEAKER_02: Gallego's not on the plan.
10:36
SPEAKER_02: It's just Mark Kelly.
10:37
SPEAKER_02: Nevada, no Nevada people on the plan.
10:39
SPEAKER_02: So it's not coming from the frontline senators, except for Mark Kelly.
10:45
SPEAKER_02: Then he's got Kristen Gillibrand,
10:47
SPEAKER_02: Andy King,
10:48
SPEAKER_02: Jeff Merkley,
10:49
SPEAKER_02: Chris Coons,
10:50
SPEAKER_02: Richard Blumenthal,
10:53
SPEAKER_02: Maisie Hirono,
10:54
SPEAKER_02: Angus King,
10:56
SPEAKER_02: Peter Welch,
10:57
SPEAKER_02: Lisa Blunt Rochester.
10:59
SPEAKER_02: Those are some of the,
11:01
SPEAKER_02: I don't want to be,
11:02
SPEAKER_02: I would say like the least noteworthy members of the caucus.
11:05
SPEAKER_01: The boring mainline members.
11:07
SPEAKER_02: Like they're in safe seats and you never really hear about them.
11:10
I mean,
11:11
Kelly,
11:11
I think we should say that Kelly has presidential ambitions.
11:14
SPEAKER_01: So does Gallego, right?
11:15
SPEAKER_01: Yes.
11:15
SPEAKER_01: Who's not on the plan.
11:16
But the other frontline members really are mostly concerned
11:22
about re-election to this second.
11:23
SPEAKER_01: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
11:23
SPEAKER_01: I like him actually.
11:24
SPEAKER_01: Okay.
11:25
SPEAKER_02: Yes.
11:26
SPEAKER_02: I just think it's interesting.
11:28
SPEAKER_02: But then,
11:29
SPEAKER_02: much more notable co-sponsors of the plan,
11:32
SPEAKER_02: Brian Schatz,
11:33
SPEAKER_02: who's going to be the next Democratic leader,
11:35
SPEAKER_02: and Bernie Sanders.
11:38
SPEAKER_02: So-
11:40
SPEAKER_02: That's weird, right?
11:41
Like those are influential people in terms of like guiding
11:47
where is the caucus going,
11:49
right?
11:49
Not in terms of their like personal ambitions for running for
11:53
president or
11:53
SPEAKER_02: whatever,
11:54
SPEAKER_02: but like legislating.
11:56
Like Bernie aspires to set the table for like public policy and
12:02
then assumes that
12:04
SPEAKER_02: some fraction of what he puts on the table will actually get done.
12:08
SPEAKER_02: Schatz wants to literally be the leader of the caucus.
12:12
SPEAKER_02: Then if you scroll down further,
12:13
SPEAKER_02: beyond the legislators,
12:14
SPEAKER_02: as you said,
12:16
SPEAKER_02: all the tax and budget people who I know,
12:18
SPEAKER_02: all the econ policy people,
12:22
SPEAKER_02: both on the mod and the progressive side were against this.
12:28
SPEAKER_02: For it,
12:29
SPEAKER_02: though,
12:29
SPEAKER_02: we have the AFL-CIO,
12:31
SPEAKER_02: the American Federation of Teachers,
12:33
SPEAKER_02: the National Education Association,
12:35
SPEAKER_02: Demos,
12:37
SPEAKER_02: the think tank,
12:38
SPEAKER_02: Oxfam US,
12:39
SPEAKER_02: Patriotic Millionaires,
12:42
SPEAKER_02: some smaller,
12:43
SPEAKER_02: you know,
12:43
SPEAKER_02: kind of front groups,
12:45
SPEAKER_02: Americans for Tax Fairness,
12:46
SPEAKER_02: United for a Fair Economy,
12:48
SPEAKER_02: Stand Up for Racial Justice,
12:49
SPEAKER_02: Take on Wall Street,
12:51
SPEAKER_02: Public Citizens,
12:52
SPEAKER_02: Social Security Works.
12:53
SPEAKER_02: So this is a bill that seems to have been met with
12:57
derision from all kinds of like tax policy technocrats was not
13:04
greeted particularly
13:05
SPEAKER_02: warmly by the frontline members who were just like re-election concerned,
13:11
SPEAKER_02: but was endorsed by like a lot of just kind of
13:16
SPEAKER_02: I don't know,
13:16
SPEAKER_02: like progressive political,
13:19
SPEAKER_02: like the AFL-CIO and the teachers unions are big deals in terms of,
13:24
SPEAKER_02: you know,
13:24
if members of Congress in safe seats want to like call around
13:29
and say like,
13:29
SPEAKER_02: like,
13:29
SPEAKER_02: what do people want me to do?
13:32
SPEAKER_02: These are groups with real clout.
13:34
SPEAKER_02: It's also just like, it's rare to see like Bernie and Ed Markey
13:40
And also Richard Blumenthal on a bill,
13:44
but like not Elizabeth Warren or Chris Murphy.
13:47
Like people just seem to disagree about the merits of doing
13:51
this in slightly idiosyncratic ways.
13:54
SPEAKER_02: Because Van Hollen's plan,
13:56
SPEAKER_02: unlike Booker's plan,
13:57
SPEAKER_02: like I don't agree with it as a priority,
14:00
SPEAKER_02: but like it is doable.
14:01
SPEAKER_02: Like if Democrats take over, they absolutely could vote.
14:06
raise a couple trillion dollars in taxes on the top 1% and plow
14:11
that money into an
14:12
SPEAKER_02: across-the-board tax cut for the bottom 80%.
14:14
SPEAKER_01: Does he represent that this would net out to budget neutral or does-
14:19
SPEAKER_02: I think he's saying that it will.
14:22
I think people I think there's some disagreement as to whether
14:26
that's really true
14:27
SPEAKER_02: because of dynamic impacts.
14:29
SPEAKER_02: And, you know, he's making he's essentially imposing a new kind of tax.
14:33
SPEAKER_02: And there's questions about how much revenue that would really raise.
14:36
But I think the main thing is that,
14:39
you know,
14:40
Van Hollen's plan does not do a lot for the poor.
14:44
You know,
14:44
it does much more for people in like the 40th to 80th
14:50
percentiles than for the poor.
14:52
SPEAKER_02: And it would crowd out.
14:54
SPEAKER_02: He's not technically using the same revenue raisers that Democrats...
14:59
SPEAKER_02: would normally propose.
15:00
SPEAKER_02: But it's like, he's raising taxes on the same population.
15:04
And it's going to mean that like,
15:05
well,
15:06
now how are you going to reverse Trump's Medicaid cuts?
15:08
SPEAKER_02: Or like, what happened to our childcare plan?
15:11
SPEAKER_02: Like, what are we doing here?
15:13
SPEAKER_02: And it's interesting to me that like,
15:16
Labor unions seem to be saying that like they're throwing in
15:19
the towel and just
15:21
SPEAKER_02: like,
15:22
SPEAKER_02: I mean,
15:22
SPEAKER_02: I think for teachers in particular,
15:24
SPEAKER_02: like this is a tax cut for teachers.
15:26
SPEAKER_02: Yeah.
15:27
SPEAKER_02: But also like teachers usually favor,
15:30
I guess if you can't get public employee unions to want the
15:33
government to spend
15:34
SPEAKER_02: money on public services,
15:36
SPEAKER_02: like really what do we have left?
15:37
SPEAKER_02: Yeah.
15:38
So let me say like the thing about the Van Hollen plans,
15:41
like you're right.
15:42
SPEAKER_01: The Booker plan kind of stands on its own as being dumb and reckless.
15:46
SPEAKER_01: And I don't really know what he was thinking.
15:49
But the Van Hollen plan is like close to something that I think
15:53
has some merit.
15:54
SPEAKER_01: The issue,
15:55
the big issue that I have with it is that we've had this one
15:58
way ratchet for five
16:01
SPEAKER_01: or six presidential cycles in a row where George W.
16:04
SPEAKER_01: Bush and
16:05
SPEAKER_01: Enacted a huge tax.
16:06
SPEAKER_01: I mean,
16:06
SPEAKER_01: you could probably you could take this back to Reagan,
16:08
SPEAKER_01: although Bill Clinton actually enacted a very significant tax increase.
16:11
SPEAKER_01: But then Bush, W. Bush cuts taxes dramatically.
16:17
Obama comes in after him and only claws back about a quarter of
16:20
that revenue.
16:21
SPEAKER_01: Yes.
16:22
SPEAKER_01: Over the course of his eight years.
16:23
SPEAKER_02: Well, no.
16:24
SPEAKER_02: Yeah.
16:25
SPEAKER_02: He caught back a quarter of that revenue in like one thing.
16:31
SPEAKER_02: But then separately, the ACA.
16:33
SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
16:35
SPEAKER_01: In a self-contained health care package.
16:37
SPEAKER_01: Yes.
16:37
SPEAKER_01: He raised taxes.
16:38
I'm just I'm talking about like the income tax code and like
16:41
what's happening to
16:42
SPEAKER_01: revenue over time.
16:43
SPEAKER_01: And then Trump comes in after Obama does another very big tax cut.
16:47
SPEAKER_01: And then Joe Biden comes in and only gets some of it back.
16:50
SPEAKER_01: And now Trump comes in again, does another very big tax cut.
16:54
SPEAKER_01: And at some point you need to re-level, right?
16:56
SPEAKER_01: Like I am for the progressive implications of this where you-
17:02
SPEAKER_01: You know,
17:02
SPEAKER_01: once you're at like a like a healthy revenue baseline,
17:07
make the curve very steep by switching things around and
17:12
raising taxes on people in
17:14
the top one or point one or point one percent and giving that
17:18
back to people in the
17:21
SPEAKER_01: middle class.
17:23
SPEAKER_01: But first, you've got to get there.
17:25
And what Van Hollen seems to be proposing is that the revenue
17:29
level that Trump is
17:30
SPEAKER_01: going to leave behind is going to be satisfactory.
17:32
SPEAKER_01: And I think that that's crazy.
17:34
SPEAKER_01: But if you can assume a world where Van Hollen's talking about this—
17:41
SPEAKER_01: as a model rather than the four corners of his entire fiscal policy,
17:50
SPEAKER_01: where he's actually going to try to reverse the Trump tax cuts.
17:54
SPEAKER_01: And then...
17:55
SPEAKER_01: do this progressivity move.
17:57
SPEAKER_01: I think I could get behind that for a couple of reasons.
17:59
SPEAKER_01: And I want to, I'm curious as your thoughts on them.
18:02
One is that like,
18:03
I'm just in watching what's happened over the last several
18:06
years.
18:06
SPEAKER_01: I've like entered my Joker phase and I'm completely fine with,
18:10
SPEAKER_01: with extremely confiscatory taxes on the richest people in the country.
18:15
SPEAKER_01: If you can,
18:15
SPEAKER_01: if you can do that without leaving Medicaid,
18:19
SPEAKER_01: Medicaid beneficiaries hung out to dry,
18:21
SPEAKER_01: et cetera,
18:21
SPEAKER_01: et cetera.
18:23
SPEAKER_01: And then the other reason is that I think,
18:27
and maybe this is like the only thing that's reasonable-ish
18:31
about Cory Booker's
18:32
SPEAKER_01: plan,
18:33
SPEAKER_01: is that Democrats need,
18:38
SPEAKER_01: and they really needed this a decade ago,
18:39
SPEAKER_01: but they still need it now,
18:40
they need a negotiating posture against Republicans who have
18:46
been trying for 40 or
18:47
SPEAKER_01: 50 years to get to a point where budget deficits,
18:53
SPEAKER_01: create enough inflationary pain or interest rate problems,
18:58
SPEAKER_01: whatever,
18:59
SPEAKER_01: that Congress absolutely has to do an austerity policy.
19:05
But then they link arms and they say,
19:06
but it all has to come out of spending.
19:07
SPEAKER_01: Like this is their plan to gut Medicare,
19:11
SPEAKER_01: gut Social Security,
19:13
SPEAKER_01: is to create huge deficits with huge unfunded tax cuts.
19:19
SPEAKER_01: And then when the shit hits the fan, say,
19:23
SPEAKER_01: You know, the the savings have to all come out of spending.
19:26
And I think Democrats need to be need to have like an opposing
19:30
point of view that
19:31
SPEAKER_01: says,
19:32
SPEAKER_01: essentially,
19:33
SPEAKER_01: we agree with you.
19:34
SPEAKER_01: I mean,
19:34
SPEAKER_01: it's not true,
19:34
but we like we agree with you that nothing has to be paid for
19:37
until the shit hits
19:38
SPEAKER_01: the fan,
19:38
SPEAKER_01: at which point we got to take it all out of the billionaires.
19:41
SPEAKER_01: Because otherwise, Republicans are just going to win.
19:44
SPEAKER_01: And whether it's in Van Hollen's presidential term or J.D.
19:49
SPEAKER_01: Vance's or whatever,
19:51
SPEAKER_01: there's going to be a much,
19:52
SPEAKER_01: much,
19:53
much bigger retrenchment than we've seen under Trump to the
19:56
welfare state.
19:58
SPEAKER_01: And you can't really...
20:02
I just don't think it's sustainable to to occupy the genuinely
20:07
reasonable point of view here.
20:10
Or you're just going to lose this wager that they've been
20:13
proffering for 50 or 40 years.
20:17
SPEAKER_02: Yeah, I mean.
20:19
SPEAKER_02: I guess what I think is that,
20:24
SPEAKER_02: you know,
20:25
there's been this kind of wave of like plans mania sweeping
20:29
around Democratic
20:30
SPEAKER_02: politics.
20:32
SPEAKER_02: growing, a gathering storm of plans since the 2008 campaign.
20:37
And the one thing I want to remind everybody of is that the
20:40
push in 2008 to get
20:42
people to release specific plans was instrumental in nature and
20:49
had like a specific
20:50
SPEAKER_02: purpose,
20:51
SPEAKER_02: right?
20:51
SPEAKER_02: Various people, but like led by SEIU at the time and Andy Stern,
20:56
really wanted to press Democrats to commit to specific plans on
21:01
healthcare because
21:03
SPEAKER_02: they thought Democrats were going to have very large majorities,
21:06
SPEAKER_02: which is what happened.
21:08
And they really wanted to prioritize an ambitious healthcare
21:11
bill as a result of
21:13
SPEAKER_02: those big majorities.
21:14
And the way that,
21:15
like Andy Stern,
21:17
but also,
21:18
you know,
21:18
his blogger allies at the time—
21:22
SPEAKER_02: token to that was by demanding that candidates release plans, right?
21:27
SPEAKER_02: But like the purpose,
21:29
SPEAKER_02: I don't want to say the point,
21:30
the purpose of like you need a plan was to try to raise the bar
21:35
for healthcare as a
21:37
SPEAKER_02: priority in 2008.
21:39
SPEAKER_02: Notably,
21:40
SPEAKER_02: like once they successfully got everybody to release plans,
21:43
SPEAKER_02: Obama did not release the plan that the we need plans people wanted.
21:48
SPEAKER_02: Right.
21:48
SPEAKER_02: And like didn't have the individual mandate and stuff in it.
21:51
SPEAKER_02: And then Obama won the primary anyway.
21:52
SPEAKER_02: And then he won the general election.
21:54
And then they passed a bill that had an individual mandate in
21:56
it because that's how
21:57
SPEAKER_02: Max Baucus thought it should be.
21:59
And Senate committee chairs actually like if you have a
22:02
powerful Senate committee
22:03
SPEAKER_02: chair who's also ideologically moderate,
22:06
SPEAKER_02: like that person is going to decide what's in the bills.
22:09
SPEAKER_02: And like that's what happened.
22:10
SPEAKER_02: Yeah.
22:12
SPEAKER_02: All of which is to say,
22:13
SPEAKER_02: like,
22:14
SPEAKER_02: I would not take my precedent from that to be like,
22:16
we should spend a lot of time arm twisting people about
22:19
specific plans so much as
22:21
that we should spend a good amount of time interrogating people
22:24
about their
22:25
SPEAKER_02: priorities.
22:25
SPEAKER_01: Yes, I agree with this.
22:27
SPEAKER_02: And the problem that I have with this Van Halen thing is like,
22:32
The implication of it is that he is saying we are going to
22:36
deprioritize the social
22:39
SPEAKER_02: safety net and the needs of the poor in favor of this revenue neutrality.
22:45
SPEAKER_02: I would see,
22:47
SPEAKER_02: I think on the merits,
22:49
SPEAKER_02: I could see the case for prioritizing deficit reduction,
22:52
SPEAKER_02: and I could see the case for prioritizing the safety net.
22:55
SPEAKER_02: I don't see the case for prioritizing this kind of middle class issue.
23:00
SPEAKER_02: Tax cut.
23:01
SPEAKER_02: But Van Hollen hasn't like committed himself to
23:05
SPEAKER_02: to that view of prioritization.
23:07
SPEAKER_02: It's not like he's saying,
23:09
SPEAKER_02: well,
23:09
SPEAKER_02: we should do this instead of restoring SNAP and Medicaid,
23:13
SPEAKER_02: or we should do this instead of preschool or whatever.
23:18
SPEAKER_02: It's just one other bill he's co-sponsored.
23:20
Like,
23:21
all these people who've co-sponsored this bill have
23:23
co-sponsored a million other bills.
23:25
And they're all slightly different,
23:28
and they all do kind of different things.
23:31
SPEAKER_02: And it's not like...
23:33
SPEAKER_02: clear at all what any of them, like, actually think, right?
23:39
SPEAKER_02: And in terms of what you're saying,
23:40
SPEAKER_02: you know,
23:40
trying to set up the pieces on the chessboard for some kind of
23:44
eventual deficit
23:46
SPEAKER_02: showdown.
23:47
SPEAKER_02: Megan McArdle was writing about this yesterday.
23:49
SPEAKER_02: And, like,
23:50
I feel like this is like a bad move on the chessboard in terms
23:54
of if that's what
23:55
SPEAKER_02: you want to set up,
23:56
SPEAKER_02: right?
23:56
SPEAKER_02: That like what you want to be doing,
23:59
SPEAKER_02: whether in a deficit financed or a fiscally responsible way,
24:02
SPEAKER_02: is just like putting more good programs on the board.
24:07
SPEAKER_02: Because we know that existing,
24:09
SPEAKER_02: you know,
24:10
SPEAKER_02: some programs generate backlash or they don't work or so on and so forth.
24:14
SPEAKER_02: But if you put something in and it's pretty good,
24:18
SPEAKER_02: and it sticks around for a few years and people get accustomed to it,
24:22
SPEAKER_02: the political impediments to repealing it get high,
24:26
SPEAKER_02: you know,
24:27
SPEAKER_02: and like it's hard to do.
24:29
SPEAKER_02: And so I think Democrats should be looking at that fact.
24:32
They should also look at the fact that when you do
24:34
state-federal kind of like match
24:36
SPEAKER_02: programs,
24:38
SPEAKER_02: then the federal government can cut spending by cutting grants to states,
24:42
SPEAKER_02: but like offload responsibility for getting rid of the programs.
24:45
SPEAKER_02: Yeah.
24:46
SPEAKER_02: So,
24:46
SPEAKER_02: like,
24:46
SPEAKER_02: I think in terms of,
24:47
SPEAKER_02: like,
24:47
SPEAKER_02: the fiscal war of maneuver,
24:49
Democrats should be prioritizing well-designed programs that
24:54
have the federal
24:55
government making unintermediated provision of services or
25:00
cutting – you know,
25:02
SPEAKER_02: sending out of money.
25:03
SPEAKER_02: Like –
25:04
SPEAKER_02: This was temporary, right?
25:05
Like the Biden administration made those enhanced ACA subsidies
25:10
temporary.
25:11
SPEAKER_02: But even so, their expiration was like a reasonably big political deal.
25:15
SPEAKER_02: If those had been permanent,
25:17
SPEAKER_02: it would have been hard,
25:18
SPEAKER_02: not impossible because Republicans had the votes,
25:20
SPEAKER_02: but politically costly for Republicans to affirmatively scrap them.
25:25
Whereas the clean energy subsidies and the Inflation Reduction
25:27
Act had this very
25:28
SPEAKER_02: indirect kind of mechanism,
25:31
SPEAKER_02: right?
25:32
SPEAKER_02: So that they could go away and it's like nobody really knows.
25:36
So I don't I don't love this as a priority as a kind of like a
25:42
talking point.
25:43
Like,
25:43
I guess it's fine if,
25:46
you know,
25:46
if we had not just Kelly on the bill,
25:50
but if like.
25:53
SPEAKER_02: Ossoff and Warnock and Alyssa Slotkin and Jackie Rosen were all like,
25:58
SPEAKER_02: guys,
25:59
SPEAKER_02: this is what we need to do to win.
26:00
SPEAKER_02: I'd be like, okay, maybe it is.
26:04
SPEAKER_02: But the fact that the most election-minded people
26:08
are not excited about this plan and the policy wonks are not
26:12
excited about this
26:13
SPEAKER_02: plan means it's like,
26:14
SPEAKER_02: like,
26:15
SPEAKER_02: why are we doing this?
26:16
SPEAKER_02: Like there's, there's, there's so much shit.
26:18
SPEAKER_02: I shouldn't say shit.
26:19
SPEAKER_02: There's a lot of stuff on the shelf that Democrats could be running on.
26:24
SPEAKER_02: And I'm just like, I feel confident that they can do better than this.
26:26
SPEAKER_01: So I, now I have a lot of things to say.
26:28
SPEAKER_01: I, um,
26:30
SPEAKER_01: I think you may be over-reading the initial co-sponsor situation.
26:35
SPEAKER_01: Yeah, maybe.
26:36
Because sometimes people release their bills when the bills are
26:38
ready and they have
26:39
their first batch of co-sponsors and people come around and add
26:41
their name to it
26:42
SPEAKER_01: later.
26:42
SPEAKER_01: Like, it's not always...
26:45
an indication that somebody thinks it's a bad idea when they
26:50
co-sponsored later.
26:51
SPEAKER_01: Like it's not that they were necessarily bullied to do it.
26:53
SPEAKER_01: They might just might not have gotten around to reading it yet.
26:55
SPEAKER_01: Right.
26:55
SPEAKER_01: So there's that.
26:57
And what I think what you said about Baucus writing the health
27:00
care bill that he
27:00
SPEAKER_01: wanted to write kind of cuts against your concern about
27:06
SPEAKER_01: Insofar as like Van Hollen,
27:08
SPEAKER_01: whether he wants to be president or becomes president or not,
27:11
SPEAKER_01: can make this a big centerpiece of Democratic Party discourse.
27:17
SPEAKER_01: And then the problems with it just get cleaned up later, right?
27:22
SPEAKER_01: Like the fact that it crowds out,
27:26
SPEAKER_01: in effect,
27:27
other needs in the country as written doesn't mean that that's
27:31
how it would be
27:31
SPEAKER_01: enacted.
27:32
SPEAKER_01: And like...
27:35
SPEAKER_01: I think what I disagree with the most about this,
27:39
SPEAKER_01: now that I think about it,
27:41
is what it tells me about where these Democrats want post-Trump
27:47
politics to be
27:48
SPEAKER_01: anchored.
27:50
It seems to me like you do something like this if you want to
27:53
get out of the Trump
27:54
SPEAKER_01: era and reorient politics around the New Deal,
27:57
SPEAKER_01: essentially,
27:59
SPEAKER_01: as opposed to –
28:02
Like if you want to if you want to come out of the Trump era
28:06
and start having
28:07
SPEAKER_01: fights about Medicare and Medicaid and tax levels and the rich and blah,
28:11
SPEAKER_01: blah,
28:12
SPEAKER_01: blah.
28:13
SPEAKER_01: You do something like this.
28:16
SPEAKER_01: I don't know what the world is going to look like in three years,
28:18
SPEAKER_01: but I think that a plan like this might look really stupid.
28:24
SPEAKER_01: on the basis of the status quo circa January 2029.
28:29
And the Democrats really do need to realize that they're in a
28:32
period of incredible
28:33
churn and that what they may be called upon to do has nothing
28:36
to do with this or
28:37
SPEAKER_01: anything like it,
28:38
SPEAKER_01: right?
28:39
SPEAKER_01: And like, you know, like the...
28:42
SPEAKER_01: Voters want them to be signaling that they are prepared to fight,
28:45
SPEAKER_01: get accountability for everything that's happening now.
28:47
SPEAKER_01: And Van Hollen,
28:48
SPEAKER_01: who has developed a lot of credibility with people like that,
28:51
SPEAKER_01: seem to be signaling,
28:53
I'm not sure that's really going to be the best use of our time
28:56
if and when we take
28:56
SPEAKER_01: over again.
28:57
SPEAKER_01: And I that's a flag to me like I it it might be wrong.
29:02
SPEAKER_01: And like you can do two things at once.
29:04
You can do the accountability shit and rewrite the tax code if
29:07
you'd like.
29:08
SPEAKER_01: Like those are not incompatible.
29:10
SPEAKER_01: But this is not a bill about rebuilding.
29:12
SPEAKER_01: This is a bill about making the tax code more progressive.
29:17
SPEAKER_01: And as to the like.
29:20
SPEAKER_01: Yeah,
29:20
SPEAKER_01: as to the gamesmanship around the safety net versus tax cuts,
29:25
SPEAKER_01: the long Republican plan to drown government in a bathtub,
29:29
I actually think I disagree with you about the value of
29:36
Democrats proposing and
29:39
SPEAKER_01: implementing plans that pencil out well.
29:44
SPEAKER_01: Because that's what they try to do, right?
29:45
SPEAKER_01: Like under Biden,
29:46
SPEAKER_01: they had this thing where they like wanted everything to be paid for,
29:50
SPEAKER_01: but they didn't want to pay a lot of money.
29:51
SPEAKER_01: And so it was paid for, but only for like two years, right?
29:54
SPEAKER_01: That's bad.
29:55
SPEAKER_01: That's bad.
29:56
I think what Democrats really like to do is the ACA model where
29:59
they come up with
30:01
SPEAKER_01: an idea that will improve people's lives.
30:02
SPEAKER_01: They figure out a way to fully fund it.
30:05
SPEAKER_01: And then,
30:06
SPEAKER_01: and then that,
30:08
SPEAKER_01: you know,
30:08
SPEAKER_01: that makes the Republican drowned in a bathtub strategy a little bit
30:14
SPEAKER_01: uh, like it delays it or just makes the cost to them higher.
30:16
SPEAKER_01: They have to say,
30:18
SPEAKER_01: not only do we need to drown Medicare and social security in the bathtub,
30:21
SPEAKER_01: we got to take all these other people's healthcare,
30:23
SPEAKER_01: drown that in the bathtub.
30:24
SPEAKER_02: It's a better net net of like Obama, Trump, Biden, Trump, like,
30:32
Federal spending on health care programs for low income people
30:34
is like way up.
30:36
SPEAKER_02: Way up.
30:36
SPEAKER_02: Yeah.
30:36
SPEAKER_02: You know, like that's like this is a this is a it's a ping pong.
30:40
SPEAKER_02: But like Democrats are winning that ping pong.
30:43
But if you but if you want if you really want to win the fight
30:45
with Republicans
30:46
versus I'm not I'm not disputing the importance of program
30:50
design or that like this
30:51
SPEAKER_01: is this is like a bad way to do it.
30:54
SPEAKER_01: But something like a a.
30:57
SPEAKER_01: a ratty version of,
30:59
SPEAKER_01: of Bernie Sanders,
31:00
SPEAKER_01: Medicare for all plan,
31:01
SPEAKER_01: where you just say current losses,
31:04
the Medicare age is 65 and we're going to take that down to
31:06
zero and we'll figure
31:08
SPEAKER_01: out how to implement it as we go.
31:09
SPEAKER_01: And we're not paying for it, right?
31:11
Like would be fiscally disastrous,
31:14
but it would immediately end medical bankruptcy.
31:16
For instance,
31:17
like it would,
31:19
it would immediately insure everyone in the country.
31:21
They would have to figure out how to get reimbursements to
31:23
doctors and it would be,
31:26
That would be extremely hard to dislodge in a in a twilight
31:31
fight over a fiscal
31:33
SPEAKER_01: crisis with Republicans saying,
31:36
SPEAKER_01: no,
31:36
SPEAKER_01: all the cuts have to come from spending.
31:38
SPEAKER_01: If you want to force Republicans to give up their anti-tax craziness,
31:42
SPEAKER_01: going at them in that frontal way,
31:44
SPEAKER_01: I think actually is the optimal move,
31:46
SPEAKER_01: not not like cashing in all your political capital spending.
31:52
Months and months and months and months of your precious time
31:54
in the majority
31:55
SPEAKER_01: devising intricate plans to expand the safety net.
32:00
Like,
32:00
as you're seeing with the Affordable Care Act,
32:02
those will get the hatchet.
32:03
SPEAKER_01: They might not go away entirely,
32:05
but but like they will be Republicans will have no problem
32:08
doing vandalism to them.
32:10
SPEAKER_01: And like, I feel like.
32:13
SPEAKER_01: In my Joker phase, I'm all for.
32:17
90% tax increases on the billionaires and just fucking try
32:21
Medicare for all in the
32:22
SPEAKER_01: sloppiest,
32:23
SPEAKER_01: slapdashiest way.
32:25
Figure out the details later and then dare Republicans to take
32:28
everyone's health care away.
32:30
SPEAKER_01: Everyone's health care away.
32:32
SPEAKER_02: Hmm.
32:34
SPEAKER_02: So I think there's a little bit of like a high level question that,
32:40
SPEAKER_02: you know,
32:41
SPEAKER_02: Democrats all need to,
32:42
SPEAKER_02: they should sit around.
32:43
I feel like Democrats don't spend enough time just like
32:46
chilling and trying to
32:49
SPEAKER_02: have,
32:50
trying to have freewheeling discussions amongst themselves
32:53
about what it is they
32:53
SPEAKER_02: think and what they're trying to say.
32:55
SPEAKER_03: But yeah,
32:59
SPEAKER_02: This whole question about billionaires,
33:02
SPEAKER_02: there's like,
33:03
SPEAKER_02: you know,
33:03
there's the view that you want to tax something to like milk it
33:10
for the money.
33:12
And there's the view that you want to tax something because
33:15
it's bad and you're
33:16
SPEAKER_02: trying to like...
33:17
SPEAKER_02: crunch it down, right?
33:20
SPEAKER_02: And so like,
33:20
SPEAKER_02: you know,
33:21
SPEAKER_02: for a while,
33:23
SPEAKER_02: state governments taxed cigarettes as like a revenue source,
33:28
SPEAKER_02: right?
33:29
SPEAKER_02: And the thinking was,
33:30
SPEAKER_02: you know,
33:31
SPEAKER_02: because smokers are addicted,
33:35
the price elasticity is like not that high and you can just
33:38
like raise the price of
33:40
a pack of cigarettes by 50 cents and like smokers just keep on
33:44
smoking and revenue
33:45
SPEAKER_02: goes up and you can fund your schools.
33:47
And then eventually there was like a flip,
33:50
you know,
33:51
of like,
33:52
what are we trying to do here?
33:54
SPEAKER_02: And it came to,
33:54
SPEAKER_02: like,
33:55
SPEAKER_02: no,
33:55
SPEAKER_02: like,
33:55
Democrats really wanted to get people to stop smoking for
33:58
public health reasons.
34:00
SPEAKER_02: But they also didn't want to,
34:01
SPEAKER_02: like,
34:01
SPEAKER_02: replicate the war on drugs,
34:03
SPEAKER_02: right,
34:04
SPEAKER_02: and the sort of pathological aspects of that.
34:07
SPEAKER_02: So they came up with a policy regime that involved,
34:09
SPEAKER_02: like,
34:10
SPEAKER_02: taxes that go beyond the,
34:13
SPEAKER_02: like,
34:13
SPEAKER_02: Laffer curve bend point for cigarette tax protection,
34:16
and then also lots of regulatory measures to discourage people
34:19
from smoking,
34:20
SPEAKER_02: right?
34:20
SPEAKER_02: Like, you know, you and I, I think, I think,
34:23
SPEAKER_02: I think, were you around when Sparky's was there?
34:26
SPEAKER_02: Oh, yeah.
34:26
SPEAKER_02: And, you know, and we'd be smoking at DC9 and stuff.
34:30
SPEAKER_02: And they started doing,
34:30
SPEAKER_02: like,
34:31
SPEAKER_02: lots and lots of things,
34:32
SPEAKER_02: of which the taxes were won,
34:35
SPEAKER_02: to,
34:35
SPEAKER_02: like,
34:35
SPEAKER_02: discourage people from smoking.
34:37
SPEAKER_02: And that created budgetary issues,
34:40
SPEAKER_02: you know,
34:41
SPEAKER_02: for states that had come to rely on cigarette tax revenue for programs,
34:46
SPEAKER_02: but also you were accomplishing something for public health.
34:50
SPEAKER_02: Yeah.
34:51
SPEAKER_02: And I like hear both takes about billionaires, right?
34:55
That like we're trying to like crush them as a class and like
34:58
destroy their political power.
35:00
SPEAKER_02: And also just like, well-
35:03
SPEAKER_02: You know,
35:04
SPEAKER_02: wage inequality,
35:06
SPEAKER_02: which grew a lot in the 80s and 90s,
35:07
SPEAKER_02: has really sort of flattened out in more recent years.
35:11
SPEAKER_02: But the stock market has grown a lot faster than GDP.
35:16
SPEAKER_02: So there's this kind of wealth accumulation among,
35:20
SPEAKER_02: you know,
35:20
SPEAKER_02: founders of successful companies,
35:22
SPEAKER_02: certain kinds of big investors.
35:24
SPEAKER_02: And so we're just, you know, what's the joke?
35:26
SPEAKER_02: Like, why do you rob banks?
35:27
SPEAKER_02: It's like, because that's where the money is.
35:29
SPEAKER_02: And just like, those are,
35:31
SPEAKER_02: You know, they're related ideas.
35:33
SPEAKER_02: I understand why they kick around in the same kinds of spaces,
35:36
SPEAKER_02: but they are sort of different and,
35:38
SPEAKER_02: you know,
35:39
worth some consideration of because they have different
35:44
implications for how you
35:45
SPEAKER_02: want to think about policy design,
35:47
SPEAKER_02: for how you want to think about regulatory,
35:50
SPEAKER_02: you know,
35:50
SPEAKER_02: complements to these things,
35:52
SPEAKER_02: and also to what you want to say about
35:55
to people about like what you're doing with revenue and for
35:59
what purpose.
36:02
SPEAKER_02: And I'm just,
36:04
I'm reminded of that reading these plans because the Van Hollen
36:08
plan in particular,
36:09
SPEAKER_02: because it is trying to make the numbers add up,
36:12
SPEAKER_02: right?
36:12
SPEAKER_02: He is sort of counting on billionaires as a fiscal resource.
36:17
SPEAKER_03: Yeah.
36:17
SPEAKER_02: Right?
36:18
SPEAKER_02: Which is different from like, we need to like smash the oligarchy
36:24
SPEAKER_02: As an idea.
36:26
SPEAKER_01: Yeah,
36:27
SPEAKER_01: I mean,
36:28
SPEAKER_01: if you were trying to design an optimal oligarchy-smashing tax plan,
36:33
it would look different than if you were trying to maximize the
36:37
amount of revenue
36:38
SPEAKER_01: you could get out of people who earn more than a million dollars a year,
36:42
SPEAKER_01: say,
36:43
SPEAKER_01: right?
36:44
SPEAKER_01: Those would look like different tax plans.
36:46
SPEAKER_01: I just think that you can...
36:50
SPEAKER_01: You can tweak the number or whatever,
36:53
the design at every – I mean you could do it as a continuous
36:56
function as I know
36:57
SPEAKER_01: you're fond of pointing out,
36:59
SPEAKER_01: right?
36:59
Like it can be one number at a million and another number at
37:03
two million and on and
37:04
on up the scale until you're taxing people whose annual income
37:09
– like we're not
37:09
SPEAKER_01: talking about wealth at this point,
37:11
SPEAKER_01: although like that's a big and probably separate discussion –
37:15
if you make more than $50 million a year,
37:18
like that's an incredible income.
37:23
SPEAKER_01: And it's unclear to me that like,
37:27
SPEAKER_01: like what even is the,
37:29
SPEAKER_01: like the laugher,
37:30
SPEAKER_01: the,
37:31
SPEAKER_01: the,
37:32
SPEAKER_01: the laugher optimum for,
37:34
SPEAKER_01: for taxing that amount of annual income in cash.
37:41
SPEAKER_01: I don't know, but I got to imagine it's high because like if you,
37:45
SPEAKER_01: Like, do you know what I mean?
37:47
SPEAKER_01: Like,
37:48
it's not like the situation with somebody who's like in the
37:54
middle of the income
37:55
SPEAKER_01: distribution where it's like,
37:57
SPEAKER_01: oh,
37:57
SPEAKER_01: you know,
37:58
SPEAKER_01: I work really,
37:58
SPEAKER_01: really hard and it's not worth it past a certain point.
38:04
SPEAKER_01: Like,
38:04
SPEAKER_01: I mean,
38:04
I guess like you have to play checkers or chess with these guys
38:09
because they will
38:10
SPEAKER_01: change their
38:12
the makeup of their income,
38:13
like,
38:14
how they get paid in order to avoid the tax.
38:16
SPEAKER_01: But,
38:17
SPEAKER_01: like,
38:18
SPEAKER_01: I suspect that this idea that,
38:20
SPEAKER_01: like,
38:21
you can't tax people who make these super high incomes over 40%
38:25
or you'll actually
38:26
SPEAKER_01: get diminishing returns to revenue is correct.
38:28
SPEAKER_01: It's got to be higher than that, right?
38:30
SPEAKER_02: I think so.
38:31
SPEAKER_02: I mean,
38:32
SPEAKER_02: I don't know if it's...
38:32
SPEAKER_02: No,
38:33
SPEAKER_02: no,
38:33
SPEAKER_02: no,
38:33
SPEAKER_02: but I mean,
38:34
SPEAKER_02: I am just saying that,
38:35
SPEAKER_02: like,
38:35
SPEAKER_02: I think we need...
38:38
SPEAKER_02: You know,
38:38
SPEAKER_02: a lot of people who just get really good at arguing...
38:42
SPEAKER_02: Right.
38:42
And so part of being really good at arguing is you're just kind
38:45
of like arguing the alternative.
38:47
SPEAKER_02: And so someone will say,
38:49
SPEAKER_02: oh,
38:49
SPEAKER_02: you know,
38:49
SPEAKER_02: we should tax the rich and like,
38:51
SPEAKER_02: that's how we'll get the money.
38:52
SPEAKER_02: And then someone who doesn't want to do that will say like,
38:55
SPEAKER_02: no,
38:55
SPEAKER_02: you can't do that because actually you'll end up with less money.
38:59
And then you're in a weird situation where normally the person
39:01
saying you can't do
39:02
that is also like a right wing person who doesn't actually want
39:05
the government to
39:06
SPEAKER_02: to have revenue.
39:08
SPEAKER_02: But then the person on the left-wing side may like flip and say like,
39:11
SPEAKER_02: ah,
39:11
SPEAKER_02: but really it's about the political power of the billionaires,
39:14
SPEAKER_02: right?
39:14
SPEAKER_02: And it's like somewhere in the arguing, we've like lost the
39:19
the discussing,
39:20
right,
39:20
of like,
39:21
analytically,
39:22
like,
39:22
what is the maximum point on the curve?
39:26
SPEAKER_02: Probably,
39:27
SPEAKER_02: if you're trying to revenue max,
39:29
SPEAKER_02: you don't...
39:29
SPEAKER_02: So part of how Van Hollen's plan is structured,
39:32
SPEAKER_02: right,
39:32
SPEAKER_02: is the current tax code...
39:34
SPEAKER_01: Do you want a revenue max or do you want a billionaire mog?
39:36
SPEAKER_01: What is your...
39:38
SPEAKER_01: I am more interested in revenue, Max.
39:40
SPEAKER_01: Okay.
39:40
SPEAKER_01: I'm not sure where I am.
39:41
SPEAKER_02: And so Van Hollen has a AGI,
39:46
SPEAKER_02: just like a special tax on AGI over $1 million,
39:51
SPEAKER_02: which makes no distinction between different forms of income.
39:55
SPEAKER_02: So whether he's got the right rate or not,
39:58
having the same rate on all different forms of income is like
40:02
definitely not the
40:03
SPEAKER_02: revenue maxing standpoint.
40:05
SPEAKER_02: Because like we know for capital gains, right?
40:08
One reason that we tax capital gains at a lower rate than labor
40:12
income is because
40:15
SPEAKER_02: if you discourage trading –
40:17
SPEAKER_02: with like a very high capital gains rate, your revenue goes down, right?
40:22
SPEAKER_02: Because you're taxing the transactions.
40:24
SPEAKER_02: So you want people to transact in order to get the revenue.
40:28
SPEAKER_02: And people argue about like what the revenue maximizing level is,
40:32
SPEAKER_02: but I think everyone who's looked at it seriously agrees that the revenue
40:37
maximizing level of capital gains taxation is lower than the
40:40
revenue maximizing
40:41
SPEAKER_02: level of labor taxation.
40:43
SPEAKER_02: There's a new book,
40:45
SPEAKER_02: I think it's not out yet,
40:48
SPEAKER_02: by Owen Zidar and Eric Zwick,
40:51
SPEAKER_02: called The Everywhere Millionaire,
40:53
SPEAKER_02: about basically like
40:55
SPEAKER_02: like all these like rich small business owners,
40:58
all these people in the top 1% who like aren't famous and don't
41:01
work at big
41:02
SPEAKER_02: companies.
41:03
SPEAKER_02: And it's a kind of, it's a really good book.
41:05
SPEAKER_02: I recommend it.
41:06
It is not coming out until September,
41:08
so you can't read it,
41:10
but I've read it in PDF form.
41:12
SPEAKER_02: And it's confusing because like the thesis of the book
41:18
SPEAKER_02: is that these rich people who have all this business income,
41:23
SPEAKER_02: right,
41:23
SPEAKER_02: that like flows to them because they own businesses,
41:26
SPEAKER_02: that like secretly they're actually working really hard to earn a living.
41:32
SPEAKER_02: And they're not just like passively collecting business profits,
41:36
SPEAKER_02: which because it's written by economists,
41:38
SPEAKER_02: their takeaway from that is like,
41:40
SPEAKER_02: this shows we should be taxing them more heavily.
41:43
SPEAKER_02: Right.
41:44
SPEAKER_02: When I think to a normal person,
41:46
it's like taxing lazy and idle rich sounds more appealing than
41:50
taxing people who
41:51
SPEAKER_02: are working hard.
41:52
SPEAKER_02: But because of this question about what maximizes revenue,
41:56
the fact that this business income is really disguised labor
41:59
income is a reason to
42:01
SPEAKER_02: think you could tax it significantly more highly.
42:04
But that's different from pure capital gains,
42:08
et cetera,
42:08
et cetera,
42:08
et cetera.
42:09
SPEAKER_02: So it's a...
42:12
It's a nuanced topic that I think that raising revenue is very
42:16
good and important.
42:17
SPEAKER_02: And I think especially in a kind of an AI universe,
42:21
SPEAKER_02: we're going to have to keep thinking about this.
42:23
SPEAKER_02: Like, how do we raise revenue?
42:25
SPEAKER_02: How do we ensure that everyone's living standards are really rising?
42:30
SPEAKER_02: And it's going to take a lot of math.
42:32
SPEAKER_02: I mean,
42:33
you could do a hybrid regime where you revenue max up to a
42:36
billion and then you
42:37
SPEAKER_00: billionaire mog above.
42:39
SPEAKER_02: Yeah, I mean, there's many things you can do.
42:41
SPEAKER_02: I mean,
42:41
SPEAKER_02: it just stands,
42:45
SPEAKER_02: I would say,
42:46
separating the discussion of what do we think is a good idea
42:50
from what are we
42:50
SPEAKER_02: trying to do.
42:52
SPEAKER_01: Let me ask a question,
42:53
because it just occurred to me as you were talking that I've
42:57
never seen any think
42:59
SPEAKER_01: tank analyze this,
43:00
SPEAKER_01: but I probably haven't looked that hard.
43:01
SPEAKER_01: Could you do a transaction tax on stock trading or stock distributing?
43:10
SPEAKER_01: What do you mean distributing?
43:11
SPEAKER_01: You know,
43:12
SPEAKER_01: like,
43:13
SPEAKER_01: the reason it occurred to me is that,
43:15
SPEAKER_01: like,
43:16
SPEAKER_01: if you're trying to,
43:17
SPEAKER_01: like,
43:18
capture as much revenue as possible from wealthy people who are
43:22
getting their money
43:23
SPEAKER_01: because people are consuming their business products,
43:27
SPEAKER_01: right?
43:27
SPEAKER_03: Yeah.
43:28
SPEAKER_01: That money is going to flow toward them.
43:30
SPEAKER_01: And if they know that a big tax is coming, they're going to try to.
43:32
SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
43:33
SPEAKER_02: Yeah.
43:34
SPEAKER_01: reorient their income into stocks or deferred compensation of some kind.
43:41
And policymakers have a hard time like playing cat and mouse
43:46
with these guys
43:47
SPEAKER_01: because they,
43:48
SPEAKER_01: you know,
43:48
SPEAKER_01: they just change the strategies as the tax code changes.
43:50
SPEAKER_01: And so I think what you want is something that covers all bases, right?
43:54
Like you want to write the tax code at that level to make it so
44:00
that you're saying
44:02
SPEAKER_01: we are going to take
44:04
SPEAKER_01: 60% of everything you,
44:05
SPEAKER_01: whatever,
44:05
SPEAKER_01: just pick a number,
44:06
SPEAKER_01: X of what you make above a million dollars.
44:09
But we're not also gonna like leave a trap door where you can
44:11
put that into stock
44:13
SPEAKER_01: and we're not gonna,
44:13
SPEAKER_01: you know what I mean?
44:14
SPEAKER_01: Like,
44:14
we're not gonna let you like hide the ball from us because you
44:19
know that we're
44:20
doing this because the rest of our plans depend on the money
44:24
coming through.
44:26
SPEAKER_01: Like, to me, I feel like that's really where
44:30
SPEAKER_01: More so than trying to figure out what the number is.
44:33
SPEAKER_01: Like, likely is not, you know, like...
44:38
SPEAKER_01: all these,
44:39
SPEAKER_01: my whole life it's been like 35%,
44:41
SPEAKER_01: no,
44:42
SPEAKER_01: 39.6,
44:42
SPEAKER_01: like these random numbers,
44:44
SPEAKER_01: like are where Congress ends up setting the top tax rate.
44:48
I just don't know that getting that number super accurate is
44:53
the most important
44:54
thing rather than just ring fencing the money itself before it
44:57
reaches the rich
44:57
SPEAKER_01: person and saying,
44:58
SPEAKER_01: well,
44:59
SPEAKER_01: however you try to,
45:01
SPEAKER_01: Give this to yourself.
45:01
SPEAKER_01: We're going to take half.
45:03
SPEAKER_02: Right.
45:03
SPEAKER_02: Well,
45:04
SPEAKER_02: I mean,
45:04
that's the idea of these wealth tax proposals and unrealized
45:07
capital gains,
45:08
SPEAKER_02: et cetera,
45:08
SPEAKER_02: et cetera.
45:09
SPEAKER_02: You know, I mean, I think it's all somewhat complex.
45:15
SPEAKER_02: Anyway,
45:15
SPEAKER_02: I just I think that,
45:17
SPEAKER_02: like,
45:17
SPEAKER_02: you've got to start with a goal and,
45:20
SPEAKER_02: like,
45:20
SPEAKER_02: then start,
45:21
SPEAKER_02: you know,
45:22
SPEAKER_02: reasoning down a little bit.
45:24
And also,
45:25
like,
45:25
I think Democrats should open their hearts to the idea that,
45:29
like,
45:30
maybe they do just want to like create a fiscal train wreck and
45:34
like create some
45:35
SPEAKER_02: programs that they think are good without paying for them.
45:39
SPEAKER_02: And then just kind of like white knuckle it into some future crisis.
45:43
SPEAKER_02: Like that's, that's not a crazy idea to me.
45:46
Now you're not going to say that on the campaign trail because
45:48
it sounds very
45:49
SPEAKER_02: irresponsible,
45:50
SPEAKER_02: but like you could do that.
45:52
SPEAKER_02: You know,
45:53
SPEAKER_02: it's all,
45:53
SPEAKER_02: it's,
45:53
SPEAKER_02: it's all on the table,
45:54
SPEAKER_02: but should we,
45:56
SPEAKER_02: should we talk about the oil market?
45:57
SPEAKER_02: Yeah.
45:59
SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
46:00
SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
46:00
SPEAKER_01: Especially because we're going to,
46:02
we're going to get so much tax revenue from the oil companies
46:04
that it's just like
46:05
SPEAKER_01: an oil company.
46:06
SPEAKER_02: It reminds us,
46:07
SPEAKER_02: I mean,
46:07
SPEAKER_02: oil company,
46:09
it feels like it's been like a long time since like any of the
46:13
richest people were
46:14
SPEAKER_02: like making their money off commodities.
46:16
SPEAKER_02: Yeah.
46:17
You know,
46:17
like once upon a time,
46:18
like an oil,
46:19
but like the Getty's,
46:20
right?
46:21
SPEAKER_02: And the Rockefellers, those were like oil people.
46:23
SPEAKER_02: We don't have like oil billionaires anymore,
46:26
but it turns out that oil is still really important to the
46:29
global economy.
46:29
SPEAKER_01: Yeah, let's talk about the oil billionaires.
46:31
SPEAKER_01: If you want to hear that part of the conversation,
46:34
SPEAKER_01: go to politics.fm and upgrade your subscription.