« The Weeds

Don't Call It a State of the Union


Sarah, Ezra, and Matt try to discuss Donald Trump's address to a joint session of congress through the lens of actual policy. 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
This we subsidies also sponsored by Nature box, good nature, backstop com, slash weeds for fifty percent off your first order. The following podcast contains explicit language through peace up, and I think it's at against names were more. I ll exert hello. I welcome to another episode of the weeds boxes: policy. Pakistan, apparently network, Matthew, Galicia to him by Sarah Clifton Klein, its own nose to not be able to see all its grey, it's great to being a behind the walls and and microphone mounting cameras are really her thing. Relax sort of format today is the morning after Donald trumps for some years, you, don't call it a state of the union and the four oh you're doing if you why. That is someone's gonna. Now it's mad something up
something. I can t take news. My tradition, you don't give a state of the union on your first year because you haven't been presidency. You can't update people on the state of the union. Some president, a few president's ago said he like wanted to do a speech in that same time of year and said it was going to be his butt message. So then, subsequent presidents have also enjoyed the opportunity to do this speech, but it turns out is really fucking hard to actually get your budget together by late February, unite the first time. I do not remember, which would be a good wheezy fact, so I don't, this time. We seem to be dropping the pretence. He has not got in this budget thing together, which is honestly fine, it's hard. It would be better to do it well. This is like the instead of the budgets be checked, speech speech you are showing that he got a speech
He gave a speech. So what about to tell us where we are telling us that hog later about their legs speech, response in the media, because it's interesting and I think a little bit curious, but first, I think we're gonna just play it straight. Unlike talk about what Donald Trump said in the speech by the policies of the Donald Trump Administration, as explained by Donald Trump Health care like it had. It seems to me more substantive than the other sections of the speech yeah. It am. I think I was a bit. An here, but I actually consider this like the most substantive healthcare plan that has been put forward by the the resolution today like- and it does not say much like There- was no plan before this, but it's like a lot more substantive than anything we saw from his campaign. Like any really just lays out some core principles of where the administration
Is there that had been done before before the speech? That being said, I don't think it gives a ton more guidance what the executive wants. It doesn't ok, Paul Ryan. That cares how to move forward, but it basically says, like Trump, is on board with them with where congressional leaders are there that he's like in the same kind of ballpark. So he basically did. This is a five point plan and I think that three point three first ones were the most important one to his first priorities at protecting keep. With pre existing conditions, making sure they have access to health insurance. What this sounds a lot like is something we ve seen from congressional Republicans idea that everyone, should be able to buy insurance regardless of river priests and condition. You might let some people be charged more if they dont maintain continuous coverage. I think it is really notable poor choice, he didn't say insurers can't discriminate against.
With pre existing conditions. He said people for existing conditions should have access to health insurance. I think those a significant word choice and wording that would have been different and you want to spend a moment on how those working in the bills- and then you can correct me if I'm wrong, but what sort of pre Obamacare stuff go and ensure could say no, but in some at the price bill would insure can do is charge you a hundred and fifty percent of them the prime yes so busy. The idea is that Republicans, in some way to encourage sick people or ten occurred. Healthy people to buy health insurance, Obamacare your mandate, everyone hates the individual mandate. So Republicans, comp with this idea, called continuous coverage As long as you maintain continuous coverage, you move from Jobbed individual market Medicaid whatever, as long as you are always covered, insurers cannot charge you mark, as you were pre existing condition. However, if you were breakin coverage weirdly the leak draft says, if you have more than sixty three daybreak and coverage and which must be something about getting past two months, I don't really understand it, but if you just sixty three daybreak and coverage insurance companies can
you a hundred and thirty percent of the standard premium if they like to when they could do that for an entire year before you can get back to the normal rate. You're right, as are the price plan, was a hundred fifty they ve gone down a little bit, which I think is interesting, but basically that's the there. You are kind of combining the pre existing protections with the individual mandate into this continuous coverage. Perfect provision, scientists, at the standard rate is a step. Is the listed price for any insurance plan? Yes, No underwriting! No answer my questions about how you are sitting that those kind of part one part two was interesting. Argue. The most controversial part of the healthcare plan is where he endorsed a to have a tax credit. He said that people should get a tax credit to help purchase and this is something is actually dividing Republicans right now. Are you see like a pretty sharp line being drawn between them? like Paul Ryan NEWS kind of more moderate, at least
this issue and the Freedom Cocker, someone like Mark meadows, who does not want any sort of tax credit, so I think Republicans generally agree. The tax package should not be as generous as the affordable care act, They disagree on whether there should be any tax credit. It also was notable to me that trumps at the guest to tax credits, it seems like his choosing aside under that debate, in the only thing, he really did there that I thought bogus Medicaid but anyways. I thought it is notable that he kind of came down on the side of tax credits in third part of the five point plan. That was no it s, always a little plank on Medicaid, where he said. You're governors have flexibility which public and onto block grants and that I believe, are the exact raising, but as something like, no one should be left behind, which see sort of like a nod to keeping medicate expansion, but it felt a lot a bit intention with, like the not to block grants a bit earlier doubly was a mention of it. We are cognizant of this very large Medicaid population,
cognizant of the meeting we had with John case on Saturday, like we stand this population matters at anything. This altogether. Adam turned over to you as our cause. You read about this yesterday and it really shows, like the baseline of american health policy, shifting I'd like to you wrote Ezra aid would really without the Asia, be really unbelievable, tavern bubble. President come and offers in its first major species. A thing he suggests is a health care plan with tax credits protection. Pre existing conditions and no one being left behind on Medical but that is much more liberal than where Republicans what have been before Obviously this is this. Speed showed its an Obamacare world now and Republicans just live in it and that the their couple things having over thing you're. So there have been two reactions to it advocates existing, both you and I have come down on the side of what he said on healthcare is pretty consequential, there's all Finally, the action which I dont think is wrong: the what he summoned healthcare was vague and both leasing.
Are simultaneously true. So what I think is really important about what he did on healthcare. Is it if you rewind the clock just really a month a month and a half back there was almost no. There is no agreement and no clear signal from the White House on even what the path would be forward. So would they do repealing delay their been conflicting statements of the White House? Conflicting statements out of town risk when they have a healthcare plan that had the totally wiped out medical remembered how Sweden pockets. They say that if you do not come Do we reverse eradicate expansion? They will oppose the bell. That is also currently their position. So now Oh Trump is on it to the left of the house. Freedom cocky, significantly credits. As you know, it are our big open question here. I will not something that They did not catch on the first run around, but but it is worth noting as secondary fighting tax credits or whether they are refundable or not. Right now, in the leaked Jill,
he draft their refundable. I'm I think, if you listen to the rhetoric of Trump, they would not be able to revive what he has said and make these credits non. Refundable, Lou, given the bee coverage designed and get it Eliza from ran Paul is treating about how well he didn't. Thereupon Nabob, I have this. I'd, be. I think these are refundable, I'd. I think that I think which is basically saying that he is more or less on board for what the house utopias looking at an end where it's gonna go from here, which I think is in order to get through this it will have to be a lot more liberal, as you actually got. These leaked documents that the plan is currently structured reply create a thirty to fifty percent individual market coverage drop, which they're not gonna, be able to do not not given what they said but the other thing I offer the fanaticism and one set, the I think, though, that I do think is fascinating. Is this really to me showed just how much Mama care is setting the terms. The date has really changed them forever.
So you now have a debate on health care which, a couple of years ago there have always been republican healthcare ideas floating around and in fact Obamacare is based on love them, like Mitt Romney ideas in Massachusetts, but the Republican Party has never. Any serious way prioritized a coverage, expansion or any kind of significant expansion of of healthcare coverage outside of maybe the Medicare Party expansion under George W Bush, and what you're seeing now is a sort of new reality for Republicans and which the argument is not over whether it should be the governments job to be funding health insurance. For able bodied healthy and young people, but how it should be doing that and Republicans are arguing that that should be done age based credits there more universal, the what Obamacare has been also lot less generous and that the healthcare that those by
be also a lot less comprehensive should cover fewer thing should be more catastrophic, but there's a, but that is a different vision of coverage. It is not a vision that is that does not have coverage. Colluded in it, and similarly I am very struck and its I've met. You nice language, ass night that the medicate expansion has put on deeper roots in republican states. Then it certainly I had expected, but the degree to which now it is agreed upon that even for going to try some stuff to do long from so Medicaid and per capita block renting- and I think a lot might becoming therein allowed that I will not like the degree to which the medicate expansion I've taken a something that more or less has to be protected. Those people have to be protected is is striking. So are we the legacy of along a care at this point, in addition to being status quo in existing law? Is that the Republican Party elect a new president? The first thing that President feel like he has to do is wait into this health care. To be, and move the Republican Party along with Paul Ryan, to a place where they are
converging and away. They happened before on a vision how'd, you do an expanded coverage system, whereas before what they're probably happened to do is have some plans afoot it around burly not do anything and to prioritize things like tax cuts and tax reform over giving people who can afford health insurance health insurance cover at a low but scepticism here, one of the main things present you're pissed Just speeches can only do so much, but one of the things they can do is try to align your own partisans behind the president's wave. Think wide its president's chance to explain to his own fans how he is thinking about things and how he wants you to think about things. So when brought
mama did his healthcare speech it. Everything was September, two thousand nine. He didn't. He didn't like magically conjure up mass popular support for his idea, but he said ok, the problem is that we have too many Americans who are uninsured. Another problem is that we need to shore up and protect the insurance planned at the insured majority. Has a third problem is that we need to bend the healthcare costs curve, and then he started talking about some of his ideas about how to do different things and whether you liked all of his ideas or not the ideas were all ideas that supported the vision that he had laid out and so would all communicated to democratic partisans at home. Here is going on. Here is communicated to Obama's our he's, or maybe wavering allies in Congress, this charismatic, and
and who just one the White House feels. This is a defensible political agenda. I may want to get behind him left, you know you're you're, merrily Andrews and your Blanche Lincoln's in your bed Nelson's, who were like outside the Obama Penumbra still feeling like kind of nervous about it. What trump did in this speech to me, I think, far and away the most important thing you did on Healthcare was he maintained the false pretence that they were Publican parties, diagnosis of the affair?
will counteract isn't. It has fallen short in providing Americans with generous health insurance coverage. They have said that that is their complaint with it, but they are lying lying is grave. Impact is sometimes Donald. Trump has gotten really really far by lying, but if you are bill capacity or Susan, Collins or Dean Heller or any of the other Republicans who is worrying, showing more computer, what you have been worrying about since election day is what is going to happen to me when it is exposed that we are lying to you those people on board you need to give them some kind of reassurance that you can get away with this sleight of hand, standing up in front of an audience and continuing to lie. Doesn't that's right, like the reason repeal until already fell apart. Is it a critical mass
senators has realised that Paul Ryan's pitch on health care is a lie. And they are nervous about going to war on the basis of that lie. Trump is just doubling on it right he's saying we're gonna give everyone better coverage, it's gonna be cheaper coverage and he is not going to do that. The ideas he endorsed will not accomplish those goals. It's not that, like. I don't think they will accomplish those goals or centre on budget policy. Priorities and things are accomplices goes Paul, Ryan doesn't think they will accomplish those goals and, if you, you know just interviewed him five years ago, like he would say it right, he would say that America has become a cushy hammock in which poor people are taken care of too much, and what we need to do is put all of our energy behind reducing poor people's standard of living.
Like that, is the driving force of his philosophy. The whole legislative framework supports that this slightly less extreme version of it is still aimed at making sure that if you have a low income in the United States of America, you receive worse rather than better health insurance, which is fine. That is a fine idea. This, like Randy envision, where you know, school lunch may give people food, but it doesn't nourish their sole is, I believe, a Paul Ryan idea like that's grade, but it gives people food. The affordable kara gives people health insurance. What Paul Ryan wants to do is where people have less health insurance would down from one up. There is, he said he wants. People have more health insurance, so they can keep spinning their wheels on this, but like either they get fifty one votes for the proposition that we will tell people. Your insurances gonna get better, but then we make it worse or else they can't and they're, just like
in this holding pattern, it seems to me and the speech not move at all and that it was like a mild slap down of these gloomy tune. Freedom, caucus people, but that's not like at all. The problem would be, as if Obama gave a speech with the entire audience of the speech was Dennis percentage, and I don't think that me any sense you know so slightly too busy hurried out of this speech You're, seeing movement in Europe can party and that I I don't know if it's driven by philosophy of certain by politics seems like a lot of it is political, but you know I've been following these republican plans, basically since the election and want to things that really struck me in this leaked dry. There came out on Friday. Is these plans are getting less punitive to poor people like make? No mistake there definitely worse. If you are poor
and then the affordable care ACT is english status quo. The guests to propose the proposition of the most generous of these bonds of Cassidy Collins Right is that more people will get worse insurance once an engineer condition of worse insurance, so they get, and I am actually that long term in terms of the Paul Ryan Donald Trump Nouveau bullshit view in which the problem would be affordable care. Agnes deductive
so too high, and you don't have enough choice of doctors. Nobody is putting on the table a proposal that will make deductibles lower and will give people more choice of doctors, they're doing the opposite. If you're anything like me, you know, sometimes you want a snack end. If what's a wound snack on his junk food, you gonna eat junk food, and it's it's not great. So if you want, I should live a healthier life. You could start snacking healthier with nature box. It makes next that actually take great and their better for you agreed with high potty ingredients that are free from artificial colors flavors of sweeteners. You can feel ok about smacking. I like some their dried fruit stuff. They got great apples are great pairs. They also have some in a slightly more indulgent, principally things and there that that I also ask for, and they recently made their service even better. You can order as much as you want, as often as you want with no minimum perched required anythin cancelling anytime I, so it's really simple you than a nature box, dot com you check out there
catalogue. There were hundreds smacks to choose from there, always adding new stuff. Do you choose what you want? They deliver Reggie your door, it's easy, but nature max! You never get. Bored is new stuff there, each month, it's inspired by real customer feedback and it for some reason. Something comes you don't like it. They will replace it for free is a good opportunity to try something new, I'm so right now, you're, safe, even more because nature boxes offering offence fifty percent off your first order. If you got a nature box, dot com, slash reads: you gotta Nature Box, tat, complex weeds that we get credit. You get. Fifty percent of the first order, Nature box, tat, calm, slash One of the things I talked a lot of people on Obamacare I've been running these focus groups at the research for the past few days, and I have become more than that it to a lot of people. We did want with people who are uninsured right now, people who are just not able to afford it. Me. I think they're mostly Clinton. Voters in one of the things there
actual affordability, issues with the affordable care act. There, a significant number of people who can't afford health insurance- and you know we ve- talked to them about I think they're number one choice or to be more subsidies to get a generous plan, but their number to trace would be at least, kind of coverage they could afford. I think I have become talking to you about control these more sympathetic than I was earlier to allowing skimpy or plans on the health insurance market, because you do have some people who are just walked out right now by the benefit package- and I know this is like but don't Donald trumps say that his place I see- and I think this is- I think this is actually a place where Donald Trump as in the past is a lot of language that, when in exactly the direction you're talking about and last night did not last night, he used the every sort of, we usually but very specific- we're gonna, make sure
Everybody has access to healthcare, we're going to make everybody at healthcare by making healthcare cheaper like if you read that instead of like, would you usually can't do with Trump, because he usually doesn't know how to do this? But here somebody was like Tom Price Cuz. We had a hand in this speech he said, and it is pretty clear that we are gonna, take down insurance regulation that you're gonna be able to get cheaper plans. And finally the time has come to give Americans the freedom to purchase health insurance across stay, line, which will create a truly competitive national marketplace that will bring best way down and provide far better care so important. It is true that what one glasses on. I understand that what he means by that is, we are deregulating the insurance industry, so people can get worse. So I figured says is that they will provide not just slightly better care, not equivalent care
or better keep. Your is not all that. So, if you are somebody, so actually do not very much want to be in the position of defending this speech, but I also, I also think that you are you're not giving credence to what are actually some of the legitimate reason to stuff is powerful. The affordable care is often knock rate for you If you are thirty three- and you make forty seven thousand dollars here and they are coming up with an eye That will give you a larger subsidy, because its eight rated at age based you will get on potentially cheaper plan, because he a trading will fall Some people, they're gonna, be winners, and there are also gonna be losers and also, I dont think This'Ll pass, which is where I would like to take it next. But I actually agree with you in the broad Kay. They are not resolving the underlined contradictions that they cannot get where they're going, but they are also coming up with a
vision of healthcare and in certain about this, a lot is even about it. I think correctly that what they are saying is that they would like to more advantage younger, healthier folks who want more catastrophic care who want on cheaper plan to want to be able to buy a plan. California Wooden allow South Dakota would, but we raised at once in the speech The way to make health insurance available to everyone is to lower the costs of health insurance, and that is what we are going to do, I'm not, that we are really disagreeing sharply, I anybody argues. He made a stirring case for an alternative vision of healthcare, but what he laid out was a different vision of health care, what he did. Signal. I mean bright now, piecing the house, Republicans, I'm in a back what you're doing like that was a signal that had not existed before.
So to say like there's? No movement, I don't think as is, is reasonable. Now this doesn't just need fifty one votes need sixty. I dont see where this goes from here. I because if you do not see what can pass the house, that is not too conservative that it can. Get fifty one in the Senate, much less get the sixty meets, because this is a vision of healthcare based on differently regulating the insurance market, and you can't do that and reconciliation yeah. I don't know where this guy. And it's a weird things like hold both ideas, and I had that, like I'm really convinced are going to do this and I see no possible path towards doing this, but that's kind of where I met right now you know the planet they cause. You were writing last night, as rather this play as is getting more and more liberal, as they have these town halls as they hear from people who am who talk about news health insurance, as they hear from like their old fart constituents, who I really like their generous subsidies.
You ve seen the new drafts of the planned kind of reacting to that then, using the backlash on the conservative side thing. This is what we want. We want to go back to lick original However, I would like to go back to the west. Subsidies are no subsidies and certainly don't see any Democrats getting on but there's no discussion of getting some centrist Democrats on board, because why would they possibly, I cannot see? Maybe you guys can, but I cannot do it. But a call rationale if you're, like you know, like a moderate Democrat, to really get on board with us like why. Why do this? I will say the one moment I think things can actually change in the nearest are future is that insurance plans are going to have to in spring. Its April or may are going after. Like say yes, I want to sell Obamacare. No, I don't I'm one of the things. I would not shock if it happened, if we just saw that a mass exodus from the market places than that, like basically forces the Democrats plan,
It will be spun different ways by both parties. Are Democrats will say, look you collapse. The market through public, as they Obamacare is collapsing in any case, a collapsing health insurance market and that will be the am the mechanism that forces change, because You can blame who everyone, but at that point about here, has become unsustainable rates, are skyrocketing. Some people can't get insurance to the market place. That's like to me the most stubborn plausible cat, lest for for moving this forward. But that sounds to me, like it's gonna, actually hardened Democrats, hard swayed that, like Trump, you know not having been president for a month. Having already we see
his rave reviews. Oh he's presidential. Now, when insurance marketplaces start collapsing never gets because I Tol Trump, you got a big problem with your collapsing insurance marketplaces. Here's our bill for a public option. Here's are building increase subsidies. Here's this! Here's that here's the other thing, then you still gonna, have freedom caucus people who are like no- and I can do you know you just like your dead. My letter It's it's trump is not taking this seriously, but what, if like millions of people in a situation where they just can't get the tax credits, there's no then just sitting by selling in their area? That's terrible. I've demagogue liquor demonstrates this.
Well your problem. No democrats have been put forward in good faith, but they believe would make health insurance in America better. Like the ideas drawn from Hillary Clinton campaign, ideas that were left on on the drawing room table, I mean- and maybe you know there's what is forty eight Democrats in the Senate, so you might find for five or six who think that the best solution is to of healthcare policy to the right, but most of them thank you should move policy to laugh. I think that was what I said, and I agree that this is gonna, be the big question and I think the issues it is our stabilization plan, because if you go back to Bronco bombers version of this address that eight years ago now he comes out in the first thing he says is. I am not the first presented to do this, but I want to be the last. Obviously he was not the last, but the thing that usually happens on and try to reform. The healthcare system is just fail. Ethical, Burma has sort of putting our heads like while they get it done so
how right likely grind it out and you finally pass it and it happens on Christmas day, and I think it's just a really significant chance that its incredibly difficult they get something out of the house and they just can't move it forward in the Senate. Also, and then there's this collapsing market problem and they have to come up with some kind of patch. But I dont know that I think Democrats and work with them on a patch. I dont think would work with them. They have just come up with something that is so different from the Ryan plan that I just don't see how you get support among the house. Applicants for it. I don't I may I have trouble gaming out the politics of the snake if you're a Democrat from a state like let's say I am a rural state that that doesn't have a carrier any more in the marketplace and like your choices, are between like supporting Ryan stabilization mechanisms are saying like no. I want my bill like I'm going to stick to that. I know it when you pack, which one I feel a group Democrats, do
like a desire to make the easy work and like if they felt like it, was actually stabilizing they would get behind thing- and you have seen the above Ministration Institute, has had to do this in a very small level is theirs. Two years where they had one county, one european vessel be last year, is in Arizona where no insurance company want to sell and they basically had to have these negotiations with insurers and, like kind of begged them to get in the market, and they did give them a nice proposition of like monopoly in particular market. But during that on a massive scale in doing that when you hate the affordable care act. That I dont know that there is like the infrastructure or stabilization. Becker's mechanisms are like desires to do that on a massive scale that's why I don't think Democrats or Paget like so far every time something goes wrong. You know it in a marketplace living there right,
The Trump administration does not take responsibility and say we are doing X Y easy to make it better and said they and Paul Ryan both put out press releases. They put out Facebook mediums, they put out twitter videos bragging about how this shows that they are correct right that, like this affordable character, not working out, so we need to take everyone's health insurance away and it is driving me serious, and I think that I am not the we want, and after months of this, if they keep deliberately trying to make it worse in order to advance their larger goal of making things even worse, the idea that they are going to get some kind of bail out from Democrat like it, strikes me that, so what do you think will happen on the other end of that we see you set right. Like I understand it, Democrats will put forward a bill that also pass, but then you have it issue of Arizona has no carriers way so well, there. The Trump administration, both change course and start trying to do a good job of winning the United States of America, in which
I think they absolutely have the ability to like make the phone calls and get people back in or else like go. Will lose their health, insurance and Asia will come down to new reg visions of employer sponsored market and a large medicate expansion and well being of fight things out and subsequent elections, but, like I don't think I've less stable equilibrium, menudo, but but rather to delay It is like to talk about immigration to because, before the speech began, a bunch of I think it is television reporters, but I Tromp had lunch with a bunch of tv, Gunnar Administrative following a thousand financing we take a moment. Yes, yes, cells, so Trump as this one, Can you be angry and we knew the Trump was having the one as it was on. It was understood so every day, like the White House, Presley's sends out the guidance ridge trumps Day and it like twelve thirty or at every time that, like lunch of television, it
is it incurs. Poorer trumps seems to historically like to be worded, not himself. There is that weird exude animal like him, making phone calls under a pseudonym, and this was specifically after trumpet. But on this whole thing about how we journalist reliant anonymous sources the is a name, their sources. He then as this lunch, where he did around the roles of it, are that he asked we refer to as a senior administration official which, while technic greek true, is just like mine blowing, especially in the context of him talking about what a poem This is been people relying on their sources. Not, and then it looks like it's six p m the embargo lifted and an anchors were able to actually quote trump? It was just like such I'd round around those, but as you have just given that a couple days ago, he had gotten up and said like. I think it was a rally. Wasn't it
If someone is really bad, is it see pack any said that report It should not be allowed to use anonymous sources cause it is making them up. Earlier that day, people pointed out there had been an anonymous briefing from the composition and ensure a few days later. Think the level of does not care like the Hubble does or does not care about the things he has said and what is not playing its. Sometimes it sometimes it balls even me over any at all folks out of the lunch and vacant out saying that tromp was really soften. On immigration that he might be open to some kind of power. What were they simply saying that he might be open is some kind of movement on immigration or if he was getting His enforcement measures in building his wall. He would, as the determine artist, pivot and move towards. I don't know if it was. I don't
I want to go to phronsie path, to listen to a legal status of legal status situation, and so there was like a lotta hubbub and are we the speech and the speech was interesting about. I don't you see a little bit like what things Trump had said that might have brought them there. But I think if you read the speech and contacts you looked at trumpet starting a new crime unit. That would you remember the name of that. Other bonuses caught voice at some point is to publicize crimes committed by unauthorized emigrants. I guess it's another one of these sort of believe all immigrants are all immigrants. Will there you go yet what it's called the victims of immigration, crime engagement tee. So and so it is going to. We are providing a to those who have been ignored by our media and silenced by special interests, whether the theory here as it there's a conspiracy between central special interests and the media to cover up the extent to which immigrants are committing com,
the United States I'm no course. There are tens of millions of immigrants in the United States. Some of them do commit crimes. Are we have fairly good research that their offending rate is lower than that of of native born citizens? And that's not a conspiracy but yeah. We're gonna have a federal taskforce designed to mislead people. About the extent of immigration and crime. Immense Europe also said: did you know he would like to see immigration action? Did you know, made America's economy stronger and focused on merit any to couple other lines in there? I don't think we saw a real change on immigration. Last night I don't think that was there. I think that, if you think about who is in the Trump Administration quitting chump himself, but also Steve Ban in an Miller who have talked about it, legal immigration being the beating heart of America's immigration problem. I dont think that is really on offer.
But I think it is worth discussing four minute, because that was the other place where there were some real. There was at least a belief that may be trumpet saying something different to end, and I I can cut a squint and see it, but I would need a lot more evidenced by. I think it's also want talking about this. This merit based immigration part because that's an area where there is a lot of, Potential ambiguity, bright and so would tromp was saying there are on the text level. Is that if the United States shifted from its current, visa system which is heavily based on bringing relatives of, U S citizens over to merit
system more like they have, allegedly in Canada and Australia. Words based more on on the job skills that you have, that this would improve the federal budget with various other kinds of things like that. So this is more or less true and it's a thing that people say but there's a lot of ambiguity in what like you mean by and so Darrell I says House Rupaul again from Orange,
anti who is often threading difficult needles, because his base in his district is super duper duper right wing, but it's also up heavily asian and latino district. I so he has a bill that he likes to bring up whenever a comprehensive immigration form looks like it's happening, called the skills ACT, and so his bill would cancel, was called diversity. Visa lottery, which just sort of like hands out visas, more or less at random, to countries that dont send a lot of people to the? U S and replace it with a big expansion in visas for people, what technical degrees so the skills and would in
Greece, the net number of immigrants and has a lot of good budgetary effects. If you look at the seabed score on it, I'm never really has like gone anywhere, but House Republicans liked. Cosponsor Jeff sessions also likes to talk about merit based immigration systems as a good idea, but he doesn't have like a Senate version of the skills act. He has never actually done anything to try to increase the flow of highly skilled immigrants to the United States of America. He just says it is bad that many unskilled people come in through the current system and there is in my mind, like a real difference between those two things right between, like talking about skills as a reason to cut back on immigration and king about skills as like? You are actually trying to do work to find ways to create legal pathways for people to come through? I am sure
that. Donald Trump has not sat down and like wed extensive research on how the canadian system works, how it's different from, australian system how we might move Bob. I probably good we'd sometime measures are actually ass, an accusation of dark should do that. This is almost certainly the kind of situation where, if you abstract away from all the details like Gary Cone and Jeff sessions, have a broadly similar slogan. So you like stick that in the speech and then you walk away and forget about it. It would be interesting if the trembling illustration, like rolled out some kind of real effort to do this, and I saw some people are very excitedly. Like writing this up, but Trump is mentioned. The idea of a merit based immigration system for my
said months and months and he's just never like done anything to indicators. He's gonna make it happen. So to me, that's like what that were yeah the space between like the anchors lunch in the speech it almost like Randy's, something I feel like I've seen a number of times with Trump and policy where a lot of times it seems like he's. I got in the talking points on republican issues but hasn't lake, fully like digested them. Like most clear example. I remember this is like this whole insurance across state lions. When, like the current, this kind of rambling, because in one of the debates we had to say How can rather lines and someone at the clearly? Some point been like these are lines and like this, I think that the plan we want, like he kind of got it halfway there on it. Another cusic talking quince telephone. Where were you? kind of like here the ideas and like I feel it gave maybe a robot indicative of a lot of what to expect from Trump on policy even zoom out of it that a lot of times
It gets confused because he's not someone who comes from a policy background he's not to buy a lot of policy, people newer when actually the great p The upshot today talking about kind of the long gap. That's happening right now and wanted. Reasons policy seems removing of slower now than it did under a bomb. As is you just have a lot fewer people, thinking about the series, proposals on the issues that they are trying to move. And so kind of it. When I look at the space between the two things we heard about immigration, it reminded a larger kind of policy gap that that seems to still exist and kind of speaks to why you see different viewpoints within hours and why you know you see slow movement on on. Basically everything about it. But I think that a search trump is just makes an inverted, the relationship between speech making in policy development that
I don't wanna. Oh, that's a deal more yelled fart than I am, but both the Obama administration and the Bush administration would workshop within the presidential branch of government and out in the agency's what it is they wanted to do, and there was like a huge iceberg of like white paper and stuff like that. That would be digested by the speed trading tee and boiled down into like a sentence or a paragraph, two paragraphs and then through background briefing balls with journalists. We would read decipher for the public like what was below the waterline of this whole speech, and you can't prove the negative, but they are not doing the kind of background briefings that way.
Suggest there is any ice under the water. Why are we using the paper way or when releasing documents? There's no there's a war in Iraq has not ended in the Obama before a speech would happen. There be like a blast, our policy. We get like all these twelve page fact sheets on everything which just goes to your point I'd exactly this seems like they are taking the speech riding task, much more literally the man and they are having some kinds of meetings about what the speech will say and because there are,
other shards of ice out in the sea. Journalists can like begin to describe to you what the iceberg might look like, but they are not actually doing the policy development. So shall I mean a cue clear example of this was that we had this a good reporting in Bloomberg yesterday morning. I think, and it said that the White House wasn't sure whether they should endorse Paul Ryan's destination base cashflow tax, but that rents previous wanted to do it because he's buddies Report, Ryan and Steve Ban and wanted to do it because he likes that it sounds protectionist, but that the Treasury sex very thinks. It's a bad idea, and the National Economic Council chief thinks it's a bad idea. So then, in the speech, there's a lie and about how foreign countries tax our exports within their goods flow into our country tax, free that I think, most likely. Is intended as an endorsement of of the border tax
But there was no as you. There was no fact she there was no. But thing call there was no explanation, and so I am not confident that Gary Conan Steve Maneuver Chin, we're like persuaded to endorse this or that anything has actually happened in the policy. Process. It seems like oftentimes. The tension in a Trump speech is between a previous, like desire to see me normal and abandoned like desire to seem crazy, and there happen to be a ban in previous cut, since around this line and the fact that their economic policy team doesn't agree with it, just kind of like wound up, not fat doesn't need, but one thing that could mean is it? The economic policy team got right then I think we won't think that happen either. We're not sure what happens when Gary coins is down with Donald Trump and says this bill. Paul Ryan is you the reason Walmart hates it and will in a bubble of law. I don't we
We talked it through and I also don't think the blood brought in the lobbyists. The ATA, like here, just argument on ratings. They just the speech and so it's challenging as a journalist, Our role is often to explain what these things really mean, but I dont want to leg over explain. It is like In times, if something sounds like you too know exactly what he is talking about, like probably there not sure can I make one weeds point on immigration stuff which is not about what are is saying, but I think it it speaks to how confuses discussion has become so. You go into the economic literature on immigration, there's a series of really interesting papers from Giovanni Perry out at a you see, Davis. I think- and he makes the point and has a lot of empirical research showing this- that there really two kinds of labour that can come into the country or Orcan frankly be born
country, we can think of it as complementary and substitute labour. So, when you bring in a english speaking indian software engineer that indian software and near can very directly with an american software engineer? They can both do the same job. They can both work at Microsoft, doing systems operations and so when you're thinking about immigrants competing with with domestic workers, that's a kind of situation you might think about What's weird is that is not the situation. People think about the situation. People seem to think about and talk about when they discuss competition with workers. Is you someone coming in from El Salvador, who does not speaking and does not have much education and is willing to accept very low wages for work and that labour parry. Argues that should be thought. His complimentary folks are do a lot of jobs. They just will not end up being done. Not so the only thing that happens, whether some competition, but they do a lot
of jobs. It will not end up being done in Amerika. If not for that labour right, you would have fewer people doing gardening work in America. Just full stop if you did not have immigration, or we see this a lot on child care in areas like this good research on this and modified. You know that literature better than I do but inside where you have a lot of immigration, the cost of child care is not lower. The costs are more people doing it to where you don't the that the cost is higher. It's not just that it's all evened out, but people competing for limited set of set of positions, and I think it's an interesting thing that the trumpet. Straighten, which they are really basing their argument on immigration. So the thing that other people say they want immigration RO the economy and then maybe we'll redistribute the gains and that sort of the market will be a view of immigration and it that's your view of immigrants, moving to a merit based idea, moving over skills based immigration policy that might make some sets because those folks they could to be,
on me, they can work in higher value industries. You know it an economy can produce more and then hopefully we're able to redistribute the game so that the folks who lost out in that are well compensated. But if what you're worried about is competition for with american worker tickly, lower skill, american workers or MID skill, american workers which is what you're seeing these sort of old man factoring pounds and and suburbs and exports a Trump one. This move to immigrants who really sharply compete does not actually make a ton of. Since I'm not saying it's a bad thing is I don't know, I think it is. I don't think we should think labour that way, but I think, within their framework, is very confused and that they have got in they are. It is not going to make their folks happy to have more good, struggling competition for jobs for his people.
Were actually doing a different kind of job in America, when I mean that's, one reason why I just like. I dont believe that the ban in sessions restrictions wing, though about combining, will ever generate this like more skilled immigration framework, I mean, I think that they might make it easier for people from Europe to come. I think they may be, would have years ago. But now there concerned that Europe has full of Muslims behind enemy lines, and I think that you know Pre Trump administration that they have always been clear, that they have our concern about the cultural diversity of the United States, using this in the discussion of the refugee ban, that they don't want, like cortical pockets of of muslim residents inside the United States, and that, like that their issue with this and there like grasp the round to find economic studies that will support their points on this, but often not in
for putting them very well or very clearly, I mean on that. Come on substitute work out. A really interesting paper came up recently by Michael Clemens at some other authors, and it looked at in the sixtys. We kicked out a lot of migrant guest workers from Mexico from U S, agriculture, and they show very clearly that wages didn't really wise in response to this, what happened? Instead, is that you can use agricultural land to do different things, and so, Sir, kinds of crops they had, mechanization alternative for so that the word tomato picking machines, but people weren't using them because they major tomatoes kind of work but when labour dried up, they brought in the machines, the quality of supermarket tomatoes. Fellow at little and Ghana, life went on things like asparagus. They like had no good way to automate that so we just grew less asparagus and they grew more iceberg. Let us instead, and so you know, people eight lettuce and and not asparagus.
People often have in their head that, like a supply and demand, model of the economy argues that wages have to go up if labour supply dries up. But, like that's, not true, there's no model of an economy that says that these areas in a fixed quantity of asperity, that Americans need to consume and things can change in so many many different ways, and when you look at particularly since Trump one. We ve had like a loud and growing chorus of people talking about how telling people, unlike buying media sized industrial towns that they should just move to find more opportunity, like isn't an adequate answer, and I think that's true, and you should really think about the immigration
in that lends white like. Are you going to do it? I had to somebody living in a declining midwestern, manufacturing town that you're solution for him is you're, going to deport some mexican farm labourers from Southern California and they can go move too. You know L Centro and pick lettuce like that, a reason and puts its isn't just that that's Alec, a reasonable solution, agricultural policies and a reasonable solution to the problems of community decline. Right Solution involves moving people and destroying their communities like we could do that without deporting the immigrants. It's not it's undoing. Any word cried. The immigrants are not flooding into collapsing towns to go start farms there, like that's on how immigration works, as I have farms work that there's nothing like that and there's this complete discount
between trumps like problem identification and this whole immigration, that there is a strong evidence that white Working class Midwestern earns a very strong anti immigration sentiments, which is an interesting fact about people, but like the two things have nothing to do with each other exit. Good move we ve talked about policy for a bed, I'm in our mainly come. I think we should just talk about the response to the speech. Destructs heroin. I woke up just how rapturous there there's once was an end. It look. I actually thought it's a very competently, deliberate speech. I thought frankly pie one of the best delivered speeches he's given, which is an interesting fact about chumps performance, night but hope that morning, Donald Trump said that it was possible that Jews were defacing
our own cemeteries, to make people look bad later that day, he blamed the military for the botched raid in Yemen, which he had approved, and then that night he write a speech of a teleprompter, and I was just really struck by how how deep the media's Layton desire to Trump normally is right and how low the bar is too. Like say, different array and I think that's gonna be like a constant tension and media coverage of this, like what is it the bar like? How do we think about this? I think I saw trumps speech godlike like me. Four proved that who were watching at but who are still on the low, and I think our saying some stats at Obama, like was usually like them. Sixties, tramples on the MID fifties us in terms of purple ratings young people are watching it generally. The majority at least thought it went really well, and I think it's something the media both struggles that you can see like both article.
That are like praising disputes in the articles. Prate, like back lashing, the of this speech. I think you're right as well, that a good point that there's like this yearning for normal see, unlike desire to cover, like a president as a president, normally works. I Amy we'll see like I covered the healthcare part the most closely, and it was a little bit refers we the coherence of actual policy details and I will write about those Nick. I can explain those, and that was different from what I amused I rang, like the most health policy have seen from Trump. Are the tweets about here is failing or like premiums in Arizona like this was actual ideas we're bride that they were not like. I am, but I dont have a kind of I saw I got a little bit of pushed back cynically you're, giving him too much credit, and you know this isn't cause the healthcare planets out of health care plan, but at the same time like it, was actual substantive policy, but there,
within that always interesting was it. I think it makes complete sense and we did covered the normal parts of this reach normally and the normal things that are happening or blaming the trumpet position does many things in a day, some emerging just there, just normal processes in other, coming out with plan are becoming with statements? What was has any me is. The constant hope that may be Trump is really different. This time right in and that to me felt like the override that not just wasn't founded, but I was just seemed so had. He believes it up. If we want a regulation that Malta have, we heard the whole thing read after a couple days ago, saying no more anonymous sources became honeymoon sourcing. It was within hours how her his I just think this is gonna, be a real like compensation believes it did the media's against that, but accurate this year is not Xenia cowardly wants to cover them. Well, they will lower the
to do it at the time and trouble himself laboratories. Thank you. How are for very long? How Trump reacts to ask you loved? No, no! We! I do he loved it. Like does this shape, because I would think like, unlike my theory of Trump, that they were there wow people really liked what I did last night, like maybe more of that he also does not appear to have me both control to move in that direction, but I'm kind of curious like a see one theory as it's like a snowball effect. Rightly people react well to him. Acted ignore present the ex more like a normal president. More.
We have not seen that there is no evidence that suggest that theory will play out, but it does not seem possible, but you think about Trump and how he works. I think a lot of this talk is like it. It's like a totally field reversal of the relationship of presidential speeches to being president leaving states white that, like we know, we have seen like Martin Sheehan play a president of the United States are giving a speech. I've seen Jeff Bridges, do it I've seen a lot of actors, do it and they do it much better than trumped as they have more talented writers working for them. They are better looking their way way way better at it. Just like the West Wing was a better show than the apprentice weddings, ok tell him without drivers. Ok, television, actor oftentimes, if you sit and think about these like movie president's speech, is not as like was is an interesting scene, but, like I'm, a political journalist with this work would Jeff bridges from the can.
Under going down into the walls of Congress and sing? Shame on you like persuade opposition party members to vote for his bills. Like now, we wouldn't you. Try it anyway, right, I mean, like things happen, I think going Obama's finals. Do the union speech. He wasn't like this speech is gonna. Get it done right, like he'd lost faith in it too, but when you're president, your president Ray you have this off, is you have all these if you're trying to do things. Presumably and speeches are one of many things that you can do to try to achieve objectives, and if you think in this basic like means ends like what is Trump doing. Why Is he not succeeding in achieving things he might want to do the speech in it just didn't like address any of that, and I thought the biggest tell in this regard is that the other thing trump has done recently. That was good was that first, he fired
terrible? Michael flattened and then on the advice of Tom Cotton, he hired a charming master to be Chairman National Security Council. First, a kind of seem like maybe my master only took it, because he was active duty, military and couldn't say no, but would then we heard that economic master has the right to like shake up the staff he's doing things. So, ok that seem smart and it was widely praised, and I was hoping that serious positive feedback mechanism would come in that trunk would say: oh you know what these guys are now to get me. I hired somebody well qualified I let him have the freedom to do his job, how he needs to, and I got praised for so we had a story that Mcmasters told the president the same fucking thing that She Ministration said that every CIA director ever has said, which is that, like there is a reason we don't run around, calling it radical islamic terrorism. I understand why you like it for partisan political gain, but like people who put on a uniform and fight,
to defend. The United States of America have thought about this long and hard and do not think it is a good idea for the president to do this. It gets people killed and it makes it harder for us to do our jobs. Then he just put it in the speech you know and like from a speech writing perspective. Clearly better to say radical islamic extremism right, but, like you hire a good policy adviser exactly to tell you that stuff there is like this is what you have to do: HU, as president, is your speech writer is saying like we should call them giraffes and your military budgets like no, no, don't call them dressed, people will die and you have to be like all right. We got to cut the line, but, like kitten, cut the line, so there's no progress. It seems to me, like it's great, that you don't give a speech. Don't give a speech, call it fake whose tweet dont tweet, but it's like- are we seeing evidence from these speeches that Donald Trump is improving,
his like ability to formulate public policy, national interest and like would clearly not- and I just don't know what everyone is like on about with like there's a varied running on the teleprompter. Well, I mean who care? There was a very funny Robert, constitute today in cost is at the wash imposes very plugged in with with the Trump people at he treated the trumpet her. So shocked by the response to this speech, they Note that did not change. Any policies has had a significant change in strategy, so they Expecting this response has no policy plans that really like use. This is a lunching right now there is talk that they were going to bring out a new version of the travel ban and they have delayed it because there are joining this moment of good feelings. I I I don't know how true that is, but that is what is being reported today. So I agree with what Sir said. I do not think Donald Trump, his impulse control, I'm you can imagine not getting better. All these other things, but getting better just the performance of the presidency Right- do not get up at five in them
being a tweet, a Europe canopies give speeches and make more sense, stop him the media, the enemy, the people. It was very notable in the speech had nothing about the media, which the last five or whatever dead, but I think Trump is tromp peace. Guy with a very distinct personality, a very distinct set of habits, and he respond The stimuli and very predictable way, such at somebody's very planned out nights are the convention. Speech was like this. Are the commission's keep each had a very dark tone, but it was the traditional conventional approach to how to give a speech like you read. The words at are in front of you on the page Ma Am Bay, they have not all the contradictions in their policies unaltered. They have a strategy for doing that, if not really made their white housework and I understand the impulse to want to cover this stuff normally, but I think that media is gonna have to be able to separate the idea that they're going to be some things. Donald Trump does more normally and, though, should be covered like in a normal fashion. Without everything
being a referendum on whether or not at noon on Tuesday, Donald Trump entire character, which has been affirmed, and all they did and show and again and again in every kind of situation and managed For years now has changed the, and I think that just makes us all kind of look stupid. There was a quote out there that you knows senior admitted An official sad Donald Trump said the speech was nationalism, but in an indoor voice- and it's not the first time that I have that's a very good light residents staff and apologize the president to a toddler, and I think this has the parent of a toddler. I actually think it's quite different, and I think it is a real mistake to view this as like toddler. Ask temper tantrums that need to be controlled, old through this kind of, like you know, stimulus response like behavioral science to to come him down like there is a reason that Trump always ends up ranting about the media and its because he has a very clear
team, which is not on the same page and does not have a process to which it can result its internal disputes. He does not have the patience to subdue long meetings and we had written material. So when people on it team want to influence the decision making process they have to do so through the media that create a meeting, a climate that is filled with stories about chaos and divisiveness inside the Trump Whitehouse that makes Donald Trump feel that he is besieged the media, and it makes him want to attack his enemies in order to unify his team. It is true that there is an image surety on trumps part that is driving this, but it's not it's not the same as teaching a kid that, like you, say, all done when you're done with dinner. Instead of throwing your food on the floor right because
It's not like that right. It's these problems, keep arising for systemic reasons and Trump is not addressing them and drums team is not addressing them like Nobody is doing anything to create a structured, conventional process in which decisions are made in a way that does not work wire decision makers to like a ring up Joe Scarborough and be like all these other guys, fucking up cause. That's terrible like you, of course, she trumps mad all the time but like he needs to fix it, and it's good. I guess that they put this speech together but like you're gonna keep having this problem unless they actually do something- and I think it's
dangerous on their own part, to be too impressed with their ability to like snow, the press. With this speech like they haven't, fixed anything and like they really should the country will be better off. They will be better off like this. Chaos is not helping, but I guess I don't know how you fix eggs. That feels like that. Like leg, you were saying like the price, one is, as I think we ve read like most of our ports- that trumped does not like sitting self prolong meetings. He doesn't like reading these, so you got like what is tat. She was at the core. Issue and the area that are tested, delegate decisions to somebody he has to do anything. You don't seem like an issue with this. I mean import. Gives ignition staff, it really seems like a trump centric. She lay valet, they haven't developed. The right processes are rounded it's like the challenge of staffing. This taking their president, but I mean, I think, look all presidents. I at least I assume that, like Barack Obama was not like purse
really weighing in on each and every thing that happened in every agency in the EU, as it is too much work to do now. He obviously he had more patients for briefings and and reading stuff a bush they say, was less of a briefings, guy like like shorter south, but you have to decide then what are you gonna do? What do you then and not do if the president isn't gonna do certain things? Are they actually unimportant, or are we going to task somebody else with them and like set something up in its trump businesslike? Fake management grew which I think has gotten I think they can admit to themselves that, like he doesn't know how to run a large enterprise and that, like not that I'm sorry You knew about it, but, like you have to run the large enterprise the way all large enterprises are run and that's with some clear lines of authority structures for whom makes decisions, an idea about what is delegated, what isn't, unlike you, have to go with it and instead there just winging it like everything. The staging a campaign rally will have
I'd like to delegate to you all is to share the weeds. Social media feeds raided on Itunes, to subscribe, to tell people, it is great, is making Amerika great again and they should lessen give us Rave reviews gives reviews begging producer from Shapiro. Thank you to my colleagues. Are cliff and not Iglesias. Here after a very long hate. The weeds is a box, dot com and penalty production, and it will be back next week.
Transcript generated on 2021-09-13.