The CBS Scores, Obamacare appeal. Why George blocks the trunk traveler and the Trump budget seeks to upset the Washington apple? welcome to the end, see doubly term edition of the editors see what I did there, I'm rich Lowry and Joint is always by the right honor. Charles see, W could, in turn, right hand, so long. I apologize off the top here. Sound. Quality might not be what you're quite used to from the editors podcast, because three of us are at the NASH, Review, Institute idea Summit in Washington DC and one of us is not the ceo came out,

score right hand on Monday, as it pretty much is what people expected the healthcare walks, and I talk to you said I was gonna- be look good fiscally, but in part they assume the bill wasn't cover many people and it said twenty eighteen, in line with you're a worthless fourteen million fewer people with covers twenty four million in and years and is produced the predictable headlines and political effect, but what should we make of it substantively? Well, the trouble for Republicans working on repealing and replacing Obamacare is that the cpu has very particular definitions, for example, of what actually counts, as insurance coverage that were always got a trip up, Paul Ryan and his allies. For example, if you. Look at what happened when Obamacare was scored by the sea view. There was a very long

really months long process to make sure that the legislation we get a good CBS score. There was one component of I hear that was later abandoned and the fall of twenty eleven called class. This was approved and that was meant to be a long term care insurance program that pretty much everyone knew was not going to work. It is a programme that was basically designed to have people pay in premiums for five years without collecting any benefits. Then people would collect benefits you know, why would you have a program that isn't gonna work at all? It's me they knew the c b. I was going to give it a very positive score and about half of the kind of deficit improvement of the affordable, Kara came from this one programme that again was very quickly abandoned. Whereas when you look at organs, they thinking maybe about the cost side of the equation, but they were really thinking about how we can take the damage on the coverage side. There, sir conversation about them. Making a few different tweaks to employers sponsored coverage

to make sure that the loss of coverage wasn't too big, but overall, they kind of new that there can be a loss of coverage and politically It's really really bad, because you know, maybe you can tell people a story in which you know this is about the mandate. The severe believes the mandate is very powerful, and this is about whether or not you wanna buy coverage, voluntarily, etc, but all firstly to most order and arrogance, and you say that you're not gonna lose coverage, but you might have. Have worse situation in terms of coverage than you did before. Obamacare, it's just not very good politics. So Charlie, How much do you think this matters on the merits, because part of it is that the see the attributes of magical power to the individual mandate and things one is repeal there, a bunch of people who just stop buying health insurance, which would be a statement on the part of those people that how much they value the kind health insurance they can get under the current system in two there's there's an argument that

mistake for Republicans to focus on coverage. This is focus on creating a free market system and let the covered number for where they met. Why which they had focused on creating a free market system might make the bill more popular among conservatives and those Republicans there seem to be running away from it, I'm not particularly by the by. Coverage for two reasons? Firstly, ideologically. I have no great interest in the federal government involvement in healthcare. As I said last week. I think this is a question for the state I have also heard from too many people who say because this is a great criticism of it Macao. Well, yes, I have coverage, but either I wouldn't have eighty the mandate weren't there or it's useless deductibles, are too high. Nothing I want is covered or uncovered for all of these services

that I dont need. Why why? Why can't? I have an actual insurance policy, something that doesn't cost a great deal, something that only covers catastrophic events and so forth. It seems to me that they said Silvio school highlights just how on popular. Many of the plans that are bomber care has yielded are renewed if it is the case, as it seems too, the fourteen million people would choose not to have health insurance. That must mean that the product isn't worth while some of those people I accept would probably be making, an actual decision for there are a lot of people out there. We ve learned ass. We see this at the polls over the last few years, who simply don't think it is worth it for them to get the churn spots are dividing the Republican should be to aren't about that. Now I don't. I also

much is divided on the left about freedom, and I dont believe people should be forced health insurance. The good part of this scores the budget he sighed and are not only because it meet makes far easier now for Congress to move ahead if it wants to adapt coffin pointed this out, but because tax cuts are, in my view, a good thing. Deficit reduction is, in my view, a good thing. Spending less money is, in my view, a good thing. Whether you think that the cuts in spending the reduction of the deficit is weak

The changes to the number of inshore and how you see, insurance in general will, of course, depend person to person, but the seabed school is not. What I think is wrong with the bell. My problem with Belarus, I suggested last week as it it doesn't re oriented towards the market. It seems to take a bomb, carries the starting point and tweak it and how much you think too severe squash matter when we do not think it should matter terribly to republican lawmakers impart. We should remember that the sea beers previous estimates on a whole number of things have been wildly wrong. I'm so it's worth taking these numbers with the signal

grain of salt and making making that case and in part it will matter, though, politically, because even if you can make the cases the White House to try to make a Ryan is trying to make over the last couple days, that the severe CBS projections were often wrong The reason this doesn't line up well Obamacare Data, because the GNP didn't try on them. Manipulate the numbers, etc. The fact is that twenty four million

Fourteen million number, whichever you choose, is going to be sort of the canonical headline number and that's what a lot of people are going to remember. So, I think going forward. You have to make a strong case that this is going to be a worthwhile repeal. I think that's that that demands two things one. It's a man's Republicans putting forward something that is smarter policy, as we talked about last week that doesn't feel this clutched together thing that pleases no one and second its constantly reminding people and and holding especially Democrats to the fact that Obamacare isn't working, and it's not going to work- and this is something we ve seen in the coverage over the last week as the American Care act of the proposal from the house. To your p is this:

disaster in waiting but Everyone who saying that on the left are mostly we're saying on the left, you know seven ways: Ryan CARE Trump care is gonna wreck. Your health care are ignoring the fact that a bomb care is collapsing before our eyes, so Republicans need to be able to make a positive case, but not let the left off the hook that their responsible for a big chunk of the predicament that we're in ceramic. Can you walk out for second here? This is something I understand it in this. This debate you have Republican. Talking point that is about care plans are bad and they don't have. You actually get careless should important metric because their height adaptable plans. When I thought for ten or fifteen years

The concern alternatives on healthcare was getting your one high level plants yeah, that's absolutely right, rich, so one complication here is that the partition. Hi deductible plans that are available under Obamacare are not exactly the classic high deductible plans. A classic high deductible plan means that it's gonna be for a very big deductible, then you're gonna kick in the first dollar of coverage, whereas these are plans that provide first dollar coverage forever. Media preventive services and other service, That kind of four of the reasons are very politically attractive, for example. This is why people talk about coverage for pregnancy, for insurance policies that are available to mend, etc. So the thing is that you know another way putting that as well. Do you really want women of trial bearing age to pay more for insurance, a boy if you don't want that or also defining essential health benefits and a certain kind of way means that you're gonna get providers who are going to say

There are two lobby more and more. We want first dollar coverage for this for that, so these are, in one sense, hide notable plans plus first doll, coverage for of a variety of things that the crackers Walter decided that everyone ought to have the political, did you raised is a very important one. I mean my senses. The Republicans basically used any weapon at hand to attack this, and so yes, there is here we can say that Obama cures high deductible plants are bad, but there are other kinds of catastrophic plans that are good, but but that Not the ardent people were making, they were spending to the fact that many people in the public don't like these plans and by the way they probably wouldn't particularly like catastrophic plans, either altogether ways around this. You could say that look as a baseline. Everyone should have catastrophic coverage and that's

Finally, with a lot of the conservative, wants it and saying people like a democratic, they ve been saying that you should have a refundable tax credit that can buy you a catastrophic plan. That does not mean a comprehensive plan. If you want to pay for a comprehensive coverage, you could do that, but the federal gum my job is to provide you with a protection against catastrophic risks to health and your family's health, but again you're that something that requires a little bit of subtlety and it's not. The political message was getting across what people are saying. We ve got to tackle them. Another element of this is that people were attacking Obamacare during the Obamacare debate over its reductions in the future growth of Medicare costs. People call this medical cots but, of course, its cuts in future growth right well, muddy. The American you're preserves all of those cuts. I happen to think that the sensible thing to do again. That was not the way the political argument was framed early wrong. So Charlie, Queen test your concern,

the Terran sensibility on something another thing that conservative walks. To get the coverage numbers up you Jim comprises written about this are measured written about this as you have this refundable credit and you get it and a state if you're, not if you don't go out by a plan, correct me. Some described this. The wrong way round, if you know that a plan. This your state, Assign you a catastrophic plan, auto enroll, you in the plan, tell you that it's it's done this and you have the ability to say no forget it. I dont want health insurance. Please take me off that plan, but the default would be everyone to be covered is that dear philosophical objections to that. What you think of that area

well given where we are, that doesnt greatly bother me and given that the left alternative is to force you gunpoint to pay taxes, that would cover you in some horrendous single pay, a scheme that doesnt particularly bother me Now I don't want the federal government doing that in an ideal world. I don't like even with an opt out. Applause. I don't like a mandatory over default, opt in rules, especially from the federal government, I feel the same thought is worth about organ donations. I don't like the presumption. So where do you think the politics of this are going because another? the aspect of the debate this week, you began really see a fierce backlash among the populist. You have some talk. Radio show host, saying that Paul Ryan is leading down trump into it,

you had Chris Ruddy. Writing Pisa got a lot of attention to this he's close to trump saying that you know what trumps got adopted: the freedom Carcass not try to, please those ideological capture, and instead go along with a plan or proposed by Parson plan to really take care of his voters through an expanded Medicaid programme. So where do you think Trump? on this. In my end up Europe, it is hard to tell him in what we do know is that tramples most definitely going to claim victory. Whatever happens right he's going to want to spin whatever happens into a kept promise to his voters. What seems to me the case is

The Trump lighthouses gone all in on this bill and gotten listen. Distance has been falsely created by Trump friendly organs like bright bark, but that's not going to to hold ultimately, if this door to go down in the house, I think that there will be significant arm twisting to move this along in the house. Whether or not the White House actually is in favour of the contents, and then it wouldn't surprise me if there's significant, significant change built into the bill or onto the bill in the Senate, that the White House has maybe more say in then than they seem to have in the drafting of this house version. The worst thing about this legislative proposal. To my mind, is that- and this is also why

and the severe score, which I am a little bit more yeah. It's not perfect, it's not magic, but I think they do a decent job and in broad magnitude and from the figuring out the direction you have about eight hundred and eighty billion dollars of costs and taxes that almost into higher only fall on high earners. You have eight hundred and eighty billion dollars almost exe, exactly the same amount in terms of cuts to future federal medicate spending? That is not great optics. I happen to believe actually Medicaid is a very serious challenge because of the state federal divide we discuss nonetheless podcast. I think it's a legitimate problem and I do think that this is a better way forward for the bridge. I also think that there are lots of other ways to do it. How do we figure out a more coherent way to divide up responsibility that the federal government estates yadda yadda? But ultimately, I think it's a good idea, reform, Medicare, Medikit and maker,

but doing that at the same time that you give an enormous tax cuts of roughly the exact same size as Medicaid cuts. That was always going to be strangely politically difficult, and I promise you this is going to be an incredibly powerful issue for Democrats. Why is that? Because a huge proportionately. Large amount of Medicaid spending goes too older Americans, particularly and nursing home care. This is something that affects a tiny number people. This is something that affects a huge number of american families, including folks, were trumpeters. Applicant states and what have you that doesn't mean- and that the current system works great- that does mean that we don't need to create a more coherent system that doesn't mean that we need to reduce the federal government's footprint even potentially, but you ve got to do it in a very thoughtful way. And this was not done in a far away- the American Healthcare ACT

we had a provision that was clawing back some tax benefits for employers, sponsored health insurance for more affluent foe. Do not worry about the last minute, Maybe that was a sensible thing to do, but that tells me that these guys are willing to adjust course, but it just so happens that they weren't willing to it Of course, when it came to these huge tax cuts for again higher What I say is one we were promised since we promised her appeal along here. In these, these attacks increases were mortal bonica, we're just on schooling them and to or not firmly going out because it at an end. Cutting taxes on the rich world is revealing a marker, yeah, I need the problem is that the essential health benefits hold the kind of key things that are part of about your or things you can't get rid of that's. Why coverage. Numbers are so bad if you could fix the regulations, the coverage embers potentially look very different, so the thing is that you have promised, people that you could do something you couldn't really do and now you're going

trouble for it to me. The most sensible way forward would have been to take a different tack. Debt some Red stayed Democrats on board to say we're going to liberate most people in the individual market, these regulations, if you have a priest, listing addition, you can buy a poem on one of these exchanges, will keep him there as high risk pools. That would have been a sensible thing to do. And it would have gotten you some democratic allies and it would have a lot harder to demonize also would have substantively man you're, giving people exit ramps off of Obamacare in my opinion, would have a much better free market solution, because eventually, when you give people those exit, rams more and more people are going to choose market friendly, attractive insurance products. People on the left wing this plan. But I do believe that there are a lot of centrist, moderate Red Stay Democrats who would have jumped out Charlie you your thoughts on the populist backlash against bill.

I'm really not sure where the populist, contingent in american political life is on these questions. I keep arguing this with people on some people say Trump represents a different republican party. It's not the hearings, free market orthodoxy ample always given is of the West Virginia in who doesn't want whose benefits taken away and others say that the populace, and was in some part, driven by a dislike of Obamacare, and unless we believe that that was false consciousness, then there is a contingent out there but wants change and in many ways will conform to the what's the matter with Kansas model. That will not necessarily vote in inverted commas in in its own interest. I think that

some of the reporting I've read from Trump Country suggested. There are more people in the latter group than than we believe Where are you going to find out once this happens? My objection politically not ideologically my objection politically, as I think, right as the or I could have done more to dig the bell to help people who have less money at health insurance. If that's his aim, it seems to me that this was a little turned ass, but some who knows my prediction. Metres is clearly been broken for a year and a half mile you as we are protecting it was gonna, go downer or get quite simply Finally, change, whereas predicting it with death,

ass. The house not do so without chirped without changes, but What you are saying last week as at this juncture looks looks better. The well saying last week, so quick quicker. On the horn question here, beginning with in. Do you think, Trop WAR and up seeing something like the Rhine Bill through the victory were the bitter end or end up dumping at seeing it through a w. I think your I think you'll have to safer and also what alternative ran dump. It happened Charlie, I think he'll say it through I'm. Where were you last week ok great, I think your top it now. I still think you, the logic is, is still see it through. I just make the consequences are so bad for everyone, including him. If things goes down he's gonna make every exert, to see it? Through a has? He has maintained is flexibility so far, so let's talk about

new Trump travel ban, which has been blocked by a judge in Hawaii Vienna, just seem so whatever they propose theirs. Going to be. A liberal judge and the western for so. The United States, who bought something national, that's what we learned that you know the the Trump Administration put through its original executive order, which you can debate on Turkey in terms of policy, but is very difficult to debate. The president doesn't have a legal authority to put that prove that there are a whole lot of circumstances built up around that original executive order. They gave political cover, to judge Robart and to be denied circuit to stay it nationally. So the Trump Administration did the prudent thing Bay took a step back. They chose not to go for with a fight the Supreme Court they put out in a revised executive order that had some of the key elements but made crucial changes, including

making clear clear exceptions for green cardholders for diplomatic thesis, etc. They rolled it out in a big press conference with key cabinet secretaries. They gave a ten day window for the agencies to coordinate. This is what this I've done from the beginning as well. They included extensive legal justification for Why the president has the authority to do this and why it isn't a muslim ban The original wasn't either and judge Derek soon District judge in Honolulu sad, I dont, here about any of that Donald Trump, send some potentially controversial things during the campaign cycle. Therefore anything, Any immigration policy he creates with regard to large muslim populations must be the result of big

that's really the only way you can read this decision as its disgraceful decision. Not only for that reason, which is, is the reason of intent, basically judge. Watson didn't rule on the policy at hand, he ruled on Donald Trumps, character or Donald Trump, even after saying in the opinion that judges shouldn't, you know, try to search the heart of petitioners or or defendants in their cases, but he also created basically x X, a new precedent for invoking the first amendment establishment clause to apply to immigration policy, which almost never has, and the sun your question has never been, as indicated by the courts. So basically what judge

Watson said it is. Not only does the establishment clause apply to immigration policy, which does which rules back this is taken seriously and upheld with rollback massive amounts of immigration policy going back a significant while, but also just makes up legal standard, with no with no real substantive basis to it. You take that in the entire means, just a mind, boggling Lee unjustifiable decision, the Charlie. I take it. You not necessarily a big fan of the policy here, but you you're here is on fire. Also about this jurisprudence are not afraid of the policy Oh, but I think this decision is outrageous and an idea outrageous lightly. Firstly, I think that we are reaching a point I wished on

from would be forgiven for thinking that it doesn't really matter what he puts in the executive order, but he's going to be struck down both politically and also because the logic of the court's decision determines but whatever he says from now on, he is tainted. Any in order that we might promulgated with his comments during the campaign, I am also worried, because this is a Rawdon, rape and unprecedented change in the law in went through some of it, but I think it bears repeating the star. Clean immigration has been left alone by the courts. Historically, it has been seen. Ass, an inherently political issue. Historically, Congress has benefited from multiple the plenary powers. Doctrine which hole.

That the judiciary does not get to oversee immigration questions, Congress can do whatever it likes that seems to have gone now. The stance that the Plenary Powers Doctrine had been somewhat weakens not substantially, but somewhat weakened in the early two. Thousands, so we were no longer dealing with what you might call the absolute plenary powers, doctrine of say, the nineteenth century and most of the twentieth century too, but quite how we got from.

The introduction of some judicial oversight of immigration questions at last times decision is absolutely beyond me. There is no point in american legal history at which a judge has drafted the establishment clause onto an immigration review that has never happened before and yet Judge Watson last night simply assumed that it applied. In other words, he simply assumed that there is a question of religious freedom at stake when Congress or a president in

The sizing powers that Congress is delegated to him puts out a new policy, temporary or otherwise, and I just think that's rather convenient, because there is no longer a statutory question about trumps order in the immigration and national nationality. Nineteen sixty five clearly confers upon the president the power to restrict immigration, as he sees fit. It also allows religion to be used ass. The yardstick and so we ve moved to this constitutional analysis and even worse, we apparently gutted the standing requirements. Historically again, it was always difficult to bring a case such as this, because it was accepted that the federal government now

you have this parliament should say the federal government naturally has power over foreign policy. It can't be done at state level. It has to be done nationally, last night in Hawaii Ass in the Washington case before it, a judge, took, really very little evidence of damage or or heard and accepted that this was sufficient to warrant for a plaintive to bring a case and in the case of Hawaii, was that somebody had his feelings, her quite literally one hundred that might have a diminished tourism industry in Washington state. It was that state, universities and colleges might make less money, where'd, you combine those two things moving it should be given any local judge who can accept

any Tom, Dick and Harry that might walk from the street on flimsy grounds and who is willing to bring into play this a more for cars of animals and religious intolerance. You ve, given him the capacity to enjoin federal migration law nationally, not just locally nationally and jumped Brackman, whose written for us and has been vocal on this made an excellent point area, really, no reason they shouldn't spill over to other areas in which Congress has been report, for example the declaration of war. Why is it not the case that Donald Trump, if, for example, he would go against ISIS say you are invading a country in the middle eastern wrong. Why is it not the case that a court could step in and so on, and we know that the intent hairs anti muslim and we assume that the establishment clause

there really is no limiting principle here, and I think Americans, regardless of what think of the order. I don't like it. Americans should extremely worried that this sort of activism, because it is not grounded in precedent. Grounded in the law and is not grounded in the text of the constitution, either Retzlaff very briefly is this argument that was floating libertarian circles a little while back, which argued that president trumps Ban the so called bad. It really might away just to be clear. It's a temporary visa freeze on how it had been seven out. Six countries have anyway, ok, so that the so called ban is. Permissible because it violated the nineteen sixty five immigration and Nationality ACT which bandits the nation and the issuing of an immigrant visa based on nationality. Now as I am entirely unable job explaining. We also have another books that the president has

really broad sweeping powerless to prevent any class of persons from entering the country only bedside, that's an argument that some libertarians made and that this. Federal judge in Maryland took seriously. What this judge found, however, is that ok, you know you had discriminate in issuing a visa, but you can't bar people from entering the country. Let's thing at first sight. Ok, so what you're saying is: ok, you cannot discriminate, we can give you permission to fly into the country bought at the airport were allowed to stop you. This is a recipe for chaos, and this is why has it general rule you give secular of authority to the executive branch, partly suit, avoid this kind of lunacy, and the funny thing is that the libertarians were making this argument about visas. We think that this argument is silly.

You can say one thing about visas and another thing about actually permitting entries in the country. I happen to think that the libertarian organise itself a silly, but this way naturally same really do half of one thing. You know. Six of another. It's just very, very strange and- and I were in an Charlie's point by the way about warming. It made me think of another thing: that's a little bit tendentious forgiveness. I'm listening about how? When people talk about anti immigration sentiment in Europe. They talk about part the sentimental invoking states and and elsewhere, and among the rich democracies, people say that the challenge to the post war order. This is a challenge and I think to myself the challenge to someone's been around for ten or fifteen years, which is a bunch of people coming in sea about whether or not countries have the right to have immigration policies in their national interest. This very basic basic stuff, like that, this is not something you know. This is

Winston Churchill Sdr were terrible. People know it's not it saying that actually, you have completely nonsensical arguments that are taken since we even the federal judiciary today, are not something that a lot of people reject as well. They should I wanted my very good friend commerce or the financial Times Genetic NASH made this point. Stouter we sooner politics today is not danger for the fifties. Isthmus for the nineties, when Bill Clinton, I'll pay? You know what we should enforce immigration laws from time to time. This might be a sensible thing to do just a thought. This is now consider hate speech. Some want people find frankly kind of confusing. I guess

exit question here will travel, they don't speak where, if so, will even instruction prevail? Yes, it's gonna go to the Supreme Court. It depends on whether I think just blackness right on this depends on whether is presented as a standing issue, in which case Kennedy would be favourable or religious discrimination issue, in which case Kennedy would be very low. We against it try. I think it is right that the name scenario is that it goes to the court on an expedited schedule when there are only eight justices, splits, four hundred and twenty four and the chaos remain this is one of the most important cases also be reached the Supreme Court because, as I said,

We need a ruling that applies nationally on house standing is to work in this area and also on what stage the plane repulse doctrine is in Toronto. The curtain will prevail. Yes, no, I think that's gonna- be a force for split. I say yes and yes just because, as you know, on the second part is very difficult to contemplate right. So the traveller assertion came out that a budget that has it a big military build up and alone he's Benny National Security area and takes a hatchet to various domestic programmes, including what some hearty perennials on a conservative cutlass for a very long time might be any Amy any any h. What to make of it. So one thing I'll say is that the big increase in military spending

really a big increasing military spending. A lot of defence hawks have pointed this out in their right to have done so. Basically, the Obama administration was planning a decent sized increase, partly because we ve been operating under these sea prostration taps that a lot of people, myself included, believe I have not been very wise and the traveling machine. Intended to boost military spending by about nineteen billion dollars over the levels called for by the Obama administration. Nineteen billion dollars isn't chump change, but I'm sorry to report to you that, in the context of defence expenditure, it is actually pretty modest amount. So this is not really a dramatic build up, but the trumpet Miss

She wants to say: hey, look, we're gonna reinvest in the military and increase military spending, and liberals similarly want to say lock their cunning all these programmes for vulnerable people in their increasing military spending, so a weird way their messaging resonates, despite the fact that there is not much there there with regard to other expenditures, other discretionary spending look I mean there might be. I think that there certainly are things that are worth cutting is that a rip reassessing but discretionary non defence spending is something like correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that thirty percent of the federal budget- it's a lie. Smaller today than it was in decades past, because entitlement spending is so big. This is where we have flexibility this is where a lot of our safety net spending goes. You know this Duff, maybe should be trimmed, but this is what happens when you say that title spending is going to be completely untouched. It means that you have to cut

everything else way more drastically and by the way it doesn't action. We reduce deficits because all of these Action on deficits relates, entitlement spending To my mind I mean it's just way to square the circle of some pretty unusual campaign promises, I'm not gonna tussle, surely Medicare and get it military spending and then but also going to radically Sri government so that your left with peanuts basically and I dont, get very coherent, and I think I actually think the president's publicly to wind up backing away here I agree with them run made ran stole my point. Stealing your nearby exactly right. So in the wake of the the, why houses, announcement, we're in this. You know full on for alarm free

about meals on wheels and the fact that the community Development Block Grant programme would be caught. And so you know if you ve been on on twitter on on Thursday afternoon. Everyone is saying that the trouble administration is trying to kill all elderly people by EU stripping them of their meals on wheels and how could they possibly do that? Well, you know this is a very sympathetic case, except for the fact. The vast majority of love meals on wheels branches for for lack of the appropriate term are almost completely funded by donations, the higher the highest that I've seen in terms of federal funding is land on it's, not even fifty percent so which you have. Is this this bizarre?

looking glass, funhouse, mirror type scenario where the things that really don't actually matter A lot in terms of federal monies things that, like those on wheels are absolutely going to get the funding they need because they could do good work, and everybody recognizes that. No, it's a dense meals on wheels. You you get! You have all of these types of

innovations YO sesame shoes, perfect example from two thousand twelve, the same way that are going to get their funding because there is massive private largest out their available to them, and you can bet they're going to get all the funding that they need. But we focus on these things because they re on points out. There is no alternative. So there's this decision, a huge distortion factor red we devote all of this public energy to these things that are going to exist, no matter what, because Americans are good and charitable with their their harder

dollars instead of focusing where we need to on these big hulking programmes that are dragging us due to show I imagine a huge fan, settle funding so that any at all pretty much anything. If I didn't understand why this budget has yielded gnashing of teeth, it's not cut its is going to spare me would be passed into law. Republicans are made that clear timeframe to be passed into law, as is it would spend more than Obama had projected spending. I wanted. As it moves around spending increases defence spending cuts other spending. I hope that the Republican Congress takes her adventure

When you asked me what I would like, I would cut almost all discretionary spending and return it to the states. I would not sign onto a defence increase and I would do serious entitlement reform which, in the long run, is of course the whole game We borrow an enormous amount of money. We are not only serious, or at least the White House is not serious about dealing with deficits and federal government is increasingly crowding out the states. Unless this game that is played whenever a budget proposed of its people, so the any I there is only

little bit of money. So there's no need to catch it. Why do you want to cut that vat only cost sixty cents per person and then, if it, social security, will thus far too big to cod, but there's nothing? It seems the cat is George well said at any point. The federal government is the exact size it needs to be to forestall unimaginable suffering. I would like to see a dramatic change here, but I hope at least that the Republican House shreds this budget and cuts it half. For that reason, I see them

so differently is because I think there are a couple of ways to think about government and its influence in our society. One ways to think literally about government expenditures and another ways to think about the larger penumbra of governments influence over society, for example through provisions the tax code. Essentially commandeer private resources to do the bidding of politicians thinking about just a kind of whole panoply of regulation. That will happen My view is that what we have done in this country for many many decades now is we have substituted one the government power for another kind of government power. We try to strain on the books. Spending taxpayer dollars and instead we was mandates and relations that again commandeer society and my view who is that we would be much better off if we were honest about spending, let's act, spend the dollars instead of trying to kind of corrupt and take over all kinds of

institutions and civil society. So if you really think about governments reach it's not really about dollar spent. In fact, I think that we have been much better off if, instead of honey, armies of Notional Lee, civil society, private sector people who are we Darwin contractors, either directly literally or figuratively. I would rather actually happened just be government so that its more transparent and accountable- and I that a lot of what we are seeing now in terms of these constant discretionary budgets, the deeper problem is that many parts of our society to think about all of the grocery stores that just big We exist because snap think about entire regional economies that are built on government. This is bad It is, in my view, a serious sickness. We have this terrible misallocation of resources, but fixing that miss allocation of resources is going to be generational project.

We see right now is a situation which you have spoken of a bunch of polish and say: what do you do this in one fell swoop? We're gonna get rid of it. I guess what Europe We voted out of office tomorrow and we're gonna snap right back to the status quo. Conservatives more than anyone else need to of an actual plan for dealing with generational challenge, that's also wide by the way are given that we have a hundred problem in this country. Also I don't see why we should bring in tons of folks other countries who are desperately going to need assistance to feed themselves and their children. But that's all that's all separation. You literally have politics in which we always think about the short term. What a satisfying, what makes sense, as opposed to this long term, hard work. Conservatives need to do this hard work and I think that he knows the corporation for public broadcasting. The stuff fine get rid of it, but that's not really will we're talking about

and this might be a most innovative podcast ever. I think, you're getting more and more. I made at the very least that we can see Charlie, you remember, surely, standing in applauding click, click exit, question Vienna years now will be any any. Each house expects probably Carper Extra Funding, Troy, yes or no. Yes, of course, we're all over the past year, we have right with evolve, go will save them. Evacuees dinner party companions will save the abs age. I'm sorry it was an obvious question, So you have been following very closely: diplomatic incidents are very sensitive one between Canada in Ireland, the US exactly rainwater people are worried about the: U S and Russia and Turkey in the Netherlands, but the real issue this past week symmetry can

Ireland and there's a there's, a bar owner in Vancouver who, for a Saint Patrick Stay advertisement, took up a photograph of the meal, Napa ties and looking meal with again ass there and unit was full, but not just for overflowing. The frog was was coming down the side of this glass and he appeared in the irish newspapers, the irish independent. I believe said that it was sacrilegious the. Mere said that irish people everywhere Hang their heads in shame at this Guinness poor and as a fan of dark beers. I saved darker the better I looked at it and I did the just have the whence it was it

painful, but the the bar honour after many he said, colorful comments on their yelp page and the rest poured a second Dennis took another photograph and on Saint Patrick Stay will give free again as to anyone who comes in with a valid irish passport. All right, so good story securely speaking of appetising meals, there's Mcdonald's tweet caused quite a paper from the car, for an account nonetheless, this came this morning at nine, sixteen, it reads at Real Donald Trump. You are actually a disk stealing excuse of a president and we would love to have Barack Obama back. Also you tiny ham. The great thing about this is: it was interspersed with dime corporate.

Wars and respecting its customers and serving grape it the claim that they were hacked, I dont believe them. What I think happened is that their intern quit in dramatic style because he or she pins the tweet to the top of the page is it strikes me as a perfect way to end your courtesy, pin Twitter useful seizure asylum annoying when looking people's timelines? What have you call when you click on it on the person's timeline? Yes right, I find very annoying the whole planet winners why citizens eyes noon was latest. I imagine the brand Executive Mcdonald Corporate Office agree with survey. You watching this she'll love on ethics. Yes, love has now Thirty seconds season, which was just released a little while ago, a few days ago, and one

the reasons I like it, so my first briefly say that John Appetite is a terrible threat. The american company industry, because this consolidated at all under his vice like rip pretty much every tv show, seems to have Abbott Housing, executive bodies, which really makes me wonder. We need anti trust, involve divide. John appetite, do John and could so love on Netflix is the show about these these star cross lovers, but but the thing that's very needed the season and I dont want to give away. I don't want to spoil anything for those of you in the audience, but there's one character. A very large here suit gentleman, who is a man who is just one thirty, old and was never had a job, and so he took his it he's a comic character. But he's also someone who seems very sweet on the surface, but is also a pretty angry person, and it was one of these things.

This was a less committed part of an otherwise very funny show, and is one of these things where this is what s a sycamore. These tv shows can kind of do. Well, you can kind of put you so now, the shoes- I show you a slice of life you would have been exposed to otherwise, because of if you listen to us, podcast you're, probably a relatively high functioning person emphasis on a relatively, but really is true. There is a huge number of men in this country. Men, in particular, folks were deep into their twenties and even their thirties, who are living at home with their folks who are not working and and this if a crisis- and the thing is that you generally see people like this infection because, frankly, it's pretty uncomfortable, it's not the people want to talk about her think about but they're out there, and I think that

another shown its own small little way did us all a world of good bye, bye, telling at least one of these stories. So it's time for editors picks in. What's your pick, my pick is Jonathan Turbans peace on the website this week on why the Trump forces need to restrain their fire at least a little bit. Paul Ryan, looking at you bright bird dot com and like, and what Jonathan points out rightly is that look Trump needs the speaker of the house and he's going to have a very difficult time if he has, the speaker of the house really turned against him and, of course, I think that its unrealistic to think anything other than that Paul Ryan and that sort of faction of the Republican Party do represent a significant number of conservative voters. This is the nature of our coalition,

right now. So I recommend Jonathan Evans, sober piece you trusted. I am recommending in total. Is peace on sharks, room is attack on new goal such which was ridiculous in those through points out that torture is claim that goal such hurt. People is generous. Prudence is bad for the little guy rise. Firstly, a false but, secondly, and most importantly, built upon a misunderstanding of what it is that judges do. It seems that the same points out the cases of humor reference, all involved, of course, such upholding the law in a neutral way, animal cases, acknowledging the law was, was bad. All the dew was mean in Spirit ass. He

points out. This is now the democratic talking point they're interested in outcomes ennasin process and they can get their head around. The fact that from the moment for the Supreme Court is not rise on John Miller has a peace in our forthcoming print issue of national review on bilingual education. California- and I recommend to you all so basically back Ninety is California passed an initiative which said we are not going to allow bilingual education. We want english immersion education to ensure that students from immigrant households in particular, are able to speak. English functioned English flourish in English as adults, and now the state of health, for the overwhelming way has reverse this, and what John argues, I think he's right is that California, voters may well have done without really thinking through the consequences of their actions. Little known fact, forty eight percent of students in California public School

comfort, immigrant households, now tell me one thing: if these folks Rocco it from households where their speaking English at home, but It turns out that forty seven percent of students in California public School speak a language other than English at home. What that means is that think that bilingualism is valuable and I grew up in a bilingual household. By the way, I think that it certainly does have a lot of virtues the idea, these students who again are speaking a non english language at home, are not going to be exposed to foreign languages. Otherwise is just nonsense. This was all about ensuring that students, particularly for low income, latino backgrounds, are able to be full participants, economy and nor society. When you get to the point where forty eight percent of kids from public schools, our from immigrant background, you're talking about a real threat of generalization ungrateful, recalling the soundness of all conservatives. To think hard about

So maybe one of yours don't know at home is you're, not even drinking coffee. You just set of Fiji. Fiji, Sarajevo, pretty worked up about the threat of a hydrogen, so my my pick is also from the forthcoming print issues. John solvents cover story, jesting Russia strategy in the eight trump and soon a heap highlights a point that was first me by Walter. Russell need, I think, is really import, but if you look objectively at trumps, Paul sees no matter what he's been saying about Vladimir Putin and the ridiculously warm things. He said about him objectively, it anti Putin and Russia, our counter, Russia's interested pro pipeline pro tracking pro military build up and very hostile to Russia's ally IRAN. So John is just a brilliant writer.

Brilliant thicker. I recommend that peace to everyone and that's all the time we have for today, thanks thanks. Try thanks right hand makes our one listening. We are the editors and will soon actually