Podcasts about fiscal responsibility act

A Regulatory Standards Bill, seeking to serve as a blueprint for good lawmaking will be introduced to parliament later this year. A discussion document circulated over the summer attracted 23,000 submissions. The concept of the Bill lies within the neoliberal school of thought, that is to reduce state influence, and prioritise the personal property rights and freedoms of individuals. Advocates have labelled it the missing `pillar' of a set of acts passed in the 1980s and 1990s. including the Reserve Bank Act, Public Finance Act, and Fiscal Responsibility Act. It would legislate principles, such as personal freedoms and property rights to guide governments when laws are being created. It also aims to improve the overall transparency of the law-making process. David Seymour says better laws which reduce the amount of red-tape for the public will drive productivity, and be better for the country overall. Critics of the bill however, say such a law would actually be counter-productive, resulting in duplication, extra costs and would constrain governments from considering principles not related to personal rights and property. The Minister for Regulation and leader of the Act Party David Seymour speaks to Kathryn Ryan.

On July 17, 2024, the White House Council on Environmental Quality released a landmark report on new digital tools for modernizing infrastructure permitting and environmental review. The report, which was mandated by the Fiscal Responsibility Act, builds on efforts of the Trump administration to modernize permitting under the National Environmental Policy Act. The report tackles the obstacles created by the lack of transparency in the federal permitting process which needlessly increases the risk to investors while obscuring accountability in the democratic process.Harmonizing and expanding data collection by agencies and making that data publicly accessible in a central repository has been a bipartisan commitment of Congress and presidents going back to the administration of George W. Bush. This report is an important step forward in that effort.During this event, our panel of experts will expound on the necessity of these changes, what the new digital tools add to the permitting process, and what we can expect from the permitting process going forward. Listen to other Heritage podcasts: https://www.heritage.org/podcasts Sign up for The Agenda newsletter — the lowdown on top issues conservatives need to know about each week: https://www.heritage.org/agenda

Eli Dourado is on a mission to end the Great Stagnation, that half-century period of economic and technological disappointment that began in the 1970s (what I refer to in my 2023 book, The Conservative Futurist, as the Great Downshift). If we want to turn the page on this chapter of slow progress and deserved skepticism, we're going to have to accept some creative destruction.Dourado believes that the courage to embrace major change is key to meeting our potential. Today on Faster, Please! — The Podcast, I talk with Dourado about the future of the US job market and energy production in a world of AI.Dourado is chief economist at the Abundance Institute, and author of his own Substack newsletter.In This Episode* The dawn of a productivity boom? (1:26)* Growing pains of job market disruption (7:26)* The politics of productivity growth (15:20)* The future of clean energy (23:35)* The road to a breakthrough (30:25)* Reforming NEPA (35:19)* The state of pro-abundance (37:08)Below is a lightly edited transcript of our conversationThe dawn of a productivity boom? (1:26)Pethokoukis:  Eli, welcome to the podcast.Dourado: Thanks for having me on, Jim.I would like to think that what we are experiencing here in the 2020s is the beginnings of an extended productivity boom. We have some good economic data over the past year and a half. I know this is something that you care about, as I do . . . What's your best guess?I think the seeds of a boom are there. There's plenty of low-hanging fruit, but I'd say the last few quarters have not been that great for TFP growth, which is what I followed most closely. So we actually peaked in TFP in the US in Q4, 2021.Now what is that, what is TFP?Total factor productivity. So that's like if you look at inputs and how they translate into outputs.Capital, labor . . .Capital and labor, adjusting for quality, ideally. We've gotten less output for the amount of inputs in the last quarter than we did at the end of 2021. So slight negative growth over the last three years or so, but I think that you're right that there is room for optimism. Self-driving cars are coming. AI has immense potential.My worry with AI is other sociopolitical limits in the economy will hold us back, and you kind of see the news breaking today as we're recording this, is there's a strike at the ports on east coast, and what's at issue there is are we allowed to automate those jobs? Are the owners of the ports allowed to automate those jobs? And if the answer ends up being “no,” then you can say goodbye to productivity gains there. And so I really think the technology is there to do a lot more to kick off a productivity boom, but it's the sociopolitical factors that are slowing us down.And I definitely want to talk about those sociopolitical factors, and the port strike is hopefully not a harbinger. But before I leave this topic, I suppose the super bullish case for productivity is that AI will be so transformative, and so transformative throughout the economy, both automating some things, helping us do other things more efficiently, and creating brand new high-productivity things for us to do that we will have maybe an extended 1990s, maybe more, I might hope?What is your bullish case, and does that bullish case require what they call artificial general intelligence, or human-level, or human-level plus intelligence? Is that key? Because obviously some people are talking about that.Can we have an important productivity boom from AI without actually reaching that kind of science-fictional technology?I don't actually think that you need one-to-one replacement for humans, but you do need to get humans out of the loop in many, many more places. So if you think about the Baumol effect, the idea here is if there are parts of the economy that are unevenly growing in productivity, then that means that the parts of the economy where there is slow productivity growth, perhaps because you have human labor still being the bottleneck, those parts are going to end up being massive shares of the economy. They're going to be the healthcares, the educations, the parts of the economy where we have lots of inflation and increased costs. So the real boom here, to me, is can you replace as many humans as possible? Over the short run, you want to destroy jobs so that you can create a booming economy in which the jobs are still available, but living standards are much higher.If you think about these big chunks of GDP like health, housing, energy, transportation, that's what you need to revolutionize, and so I can think of lots of ways in health that we could use AI to increase productivity. And I also have very little doubt that even current levels of AI could massively increase productivity in health. I think the big question is whether we will be allowed to do it.So you don't need AGI that is as good as a human in every single thing that a human might do to limit the number of humans that are involved in providing healthcare. Housing, I think there's construction robots that maybe could do it, but I think the main limits are, like land use regulation, more sociopolitical. In energy, it's kind of the same thing, NIMBYism is kind of the biggest thing. Maybe there's an R&D component that AI could contribute to. And then in transportation, again, we could automate a lot of transportation. Some of that's happening with autonomous cars, but we are having trouble automating our ports, for example, we're having trouble automating cargo railroads for similar make-work reasons.I think the bull case is you don't need AGI, really, really sophisticated AI that can do everything, but you do need to be able to swap out human workers for even simpler AI functions.I don't actually think that you need one-to-one replacement for humans, but you do need to get humans out of the loop in many, many more places.Growing pains of job market disruption (7:26)I'm sure that some people are hearing you talk about swapping out human workers, replacing human workers. They're thinking, this is a world of vast technologically-driven unemployment; that is what you are describing. Is that what you're describing?Not at all. If we had the kind of productivity boom we're talking about, the economy would be so incredibly hot, and you need that hot market. People have all kinds of fantasies about how good AI could get. Can it substitute for a human in every single thing? And I'm not even positing that. I'm saying if we could just get it good enough to substitute in some things, the economy's going to be booming, it's going to be hot, there will still be things that humans can do that AIs can't. There's lots of things that maybe we want a human to do, even if the AI can do it, and we will be able to afford that a lot better.I think that the world I'm thinking about is one where living standards are way higher for everybody — and higher levels of equality, even. If you have the sort of uneven productivity gains that we've had for the last several decades, where tech does really well, but every other part of the economy does badly, well, that drives a lot of regional inequality, that drives a lot of different kinds of demographic inequality, and if we had broad-base productivity growth, that means better living standards for everybody, and I think that's what we should aim for.When I talk about what you've been referring to as these sociopolitical factors or how we might slow down progress, slow down automation, the whimsical example I use is there being a law saying that yes, you can have kiosks in every McDonald's, but you have to have an employee standing next to the kiosk to actually punch the buttons.As you mentioned with this port worker strike, we don't need my scenario. That is kind of what's happening on these ports, where there could be a lot more automation, but because of both unions and our acquiescence to these unions, we don't have the kind of automation — forget about sci-fi — that doesn't exist in other places in the world. And I wonder if that doesn't sort of encapsulate, at least in this country, the challenge: Can we get our heads around the idea that it's okay in the long run, that there will be some downsides, and some people might be worse off, and we need to take care of those people, but that's the disruption we need to tolerate to move forward?You can't have a growing economy where there's no churn, where there's no displacement, where it's complete, where there's no dynamism. You need to be able to accept some level of change. I sympathize with people whose jobs get destroyed by automation. It is hard, but it's much less hard if the economy is super hot because we've been prioritizing productivity growth, and if that were the case, I think we'd find new jobs for those people very quickly. The process is not automatic, but it's much slower when you have low productivity growth and a stagnant economy than it is when you have high productivity growth and a booming economy.The question I always get is, what about the 60-year-old guy? What's he going to do? And I'm not sure I have a much better answer. Maybe there's other jobs, but it's tough to transition, so maybe the answer there is you cut him a check, you cut that 60-year-old a check, and if you have a high-productivity economy, you have the resources for that to be an option.Right! So that's the other thing is that we can afford to be generous with people if we have a really rapidly growing economy. It's that we don't have the resources if we're stagnating, if we're already overextended fiscally, that's a terrible position to be in because you can't actually afford to be generous. And if there are people that truly, like you said, maybe they're very old and it doesn't make sense to retrain, or something like that, they're near retirement, yeah, absolutely, we can afford that much better when GDP is much higher.Where do you think, as a nation, our head is at as far as embracing or not being fearful of disruption from technological change? If I only looked at where our head was at with trade, I would be very, very worried about entering a period of significant technological disruption, and I would assume that we will see lots and lots of pushback if AI, for instance, is the kind of important, transformative, general purpose technology that I hope it is.Again, if I look at trade, I think, “Boy, there's going to be a lot of pushback.” Then again, when I think about risk broadly, and maybe it's not quite the same thing, I think, “Well, then again, we seem to be more embracing of nuclear energy, which shows maybe — it's not the same thing, but it shows a greater risk tolerance.” And I'm always thinking, what's our societal risk tolerance? Where do you think we're at right now?I think most people, most Americans, don't actually think in those terms. I think most Americans just think about, “How are things going for me?” They kind of evaluate their own life, and if their communities, or whatever, have been struggling due to trade stuff, or something like that, they'll be against it. So I think the people who think in these more high-level terms, it's like societal elites, and I think normal people who have just lived under 50 years of stagnation, they're kind of distrustful of the elites right now: “I don't pay attention to policy that closely, and my life is bad, at least in some dimensions is not as good as I wanted it to be, it's hasn't had the increase that my parents' generation had,” or something like that. And they're very distrustful of elites, and they're very mad, and you see this nihilistic populism popping up.You see kind of a diverse array of responses to this nihilistic populism. Some people might say, “Well yeah, elites really have messed up and we need to do what the common people want.” And then the other people are like, “No, we can't do that. We need to stay the course.” But I think that there's a hybrid response, where it's like, the elites really have done bad, but we don't just want to do what the populists want, we want to just have better elite-led policies, which include things like, we have to take productivity growth seriously, we can't just paper over a lot of the tensions and the conflicts that arise from that, we need to embrace them head-on and do everything we can to produce an economy that is productive, that works for everybody, but maybe not in the way that the populists think it will work.You can't have a growing economy where there's no churn, where there's no displacement, where it's complete, where there's no dynamism. You need to be able to accept some level of change.The politics of productivity growth (15:20)I would love to see what American politics looks like if the rest of this decade we saw the kind of economic productivity and wage growth that we saw in the fat part of the 1990s. We act like the current environment, that's our reality, and that's our reality as far as the eye can see, but I'll tell you, in the early '90s, there was a lot of gloom and doom about the economy, about productivity, how fast we could grow, the rise and fall of great powers, and America was overstretched, and after really three or four years of strong growth, it's like America Triumphant. And I'm wondering if that would be the politics of 2030 if we were able to generate that kind of boom.Yeah, I think that's totally right. And if you look at total factor productivity, which is my KPI [key performance indicator] or whatever, if you look at 1995 to 2005, you were back to almost two percent growth, which is what we had from 1920 to 1973. So you had a slow period from 1973 to 1995, and an even slower period since 2005, and you get back to that two percent. That's the magic number. I think if we had TFP at two percent, that changes everything. That's a game-changer for politics, for civility, for social stability, we'd really be going places if we had that.I was mentioning our reaction to trade and nuclear power. The obvious one, which I should have mentioned, is how we are reacting to AI right now. I think it's a good sign that Congress has not produced some sort of mega regulation bill, that this recent bill in California was not signed by Governor Newsom. Congress has spent time meeting with technologists and economists trying to learn something about AI, both the benefits and risks.And I think the fact that it seems like, even though there was this rush at some point where we needed to have a pause, we needed to quickly regulate it, that seems to have slowed down, and I think that's a good sign that perhaps we're able to hit a good balance here between wanting to embrace the upside and not utterly panicking that we're producing the Terminator.Absolutely. I think AI is something where the benefits are very clear, we're starting to see them already. The harms are extremely hypothetical, it's not evidence-based, it's really a lot of sci-fi scenarios. I think the right attitude in that kind of world is to let things ride for a while. If there are harms that arise, we can address them in narrowly tailored ways.I think government is sometimes criticized for being reactive, but reactive is the right approach for a lot of issues. You don't want to slow things down preemptively. You want to react to real facts on the ground. And if we need to react quickly, okay, we'll react quickly, but in a narrowly tailored way that addresses real harms, not just hypothetical stuff.I love what you're saying there about reaction. I'm a big preparer. I love preparation. If I'm going to go anywhere, I over-prepare for all eventualities, I will bring a messenger bag so if the world should end while I'm out, I'll be okay. I love to prepare. But one lesson I draw from the pandemic is that only gets you so far, preparation, because before the pandemic, there were a gazillion white papers about the possibility of a pandemic, all kinds of plans as a culture, we were sort of marinating in pandemic apocalypse films, maybe about turning us into zombies rather than giving us a disease.And then when we finally have a pandemic, it's like, “Where's the respirators? Where's this, where's that? We didn't have enough of this.” And so, while I'm sure preparation is great, what really helped us is we reacted. We reacted in real time because we're a rich country, we're a technologically advanced country, and we came up with a technological fix in a vaccine. To me — and again, I'm not sure how this is you meant it — but the power of being able to react effectively, boy, that's a pretty good capability of a well-functioning country.Yeah, and a slight difference between the pandemic and AI is it was not the first pandemic. AI is just such a unique set of theorized risks that people are like, nothing like this has ever happened before. This is like the introduction of a brand new super-intelligent species to the planet. This is the first time two intelligent species — if you want to count humans as an intelligent species — two intelligent species will the planet at the same time. And the theorization here is just so far out of the spectrum of our experience that it is hard to even see how you could prepare if those risk materialize. The only intelligent thing that is likely to do any good is to have our eyes open, and let's see what the harms are as they materialize.The problem with coming up with remedies for theorized harms is that the remedies never go away once they're implemented. Safety regulation never gets laxer over time. And so if you're implementing safety regulations because of real safety problems, okay, fair play, to some extent. I think in some dimensions we're too safe, but it kind of makes sense. But if you're doing it to just theorized harms that have never materialized, I think that's a big mistake.And you've written about this fairly recently. To me, there's a good kind of complexity with an economy that you have a high-functioning economy where people can connect, and colleges and universities, and businesses, and entrepreneurs, these networks work together to produce computer chips or large language models. That's a good kind of complexity.But then there's the other kind of complexity, in which you just have layer after layer of bureaucracy, and programs meant to solve a problem that was a problem 20 years ago and is no longer a problem, and that kind of complexity, that's not the kind we want, right?Yeah, I think you want the sophistication in the economy, but in a way that works for everybody. There have to be benefits to it. If you increase the burden of complexity without producing any net benefits, then people start to rebel against it, they start to be indifferent to or apathetic about the health of society. And there's an anthropologist, Joseph Tainter, who wrote this book, The Collapse of Complex Societies, and his theory is that once you have complexity without the marginal benefits of complexity, you're in for a shock, at some point, when people start becoming apathetic or hostile to the current order. And the complexity grows and shrinks as a system, you can't ever just control like, “Oh, let's do more, or let's do one percent less complexity.” Once people start to rebel against it, it snowballs and you could end up with a very bad situation.The problem with coming up with remedies for theorized harms is that the remedies never go away once they're implemented. Safety regulation never gets laxer over time.The future of clean energy (23:35)Nuclear versus solar versus geothermal: What do you like there?Solar panels have massively come down in cost, and we're not that far away from — in sort of number of doublings of deployment, and sort of long-deployment space — we're not that far away from the cost being so low that . . . you could almost round the panels cost to free. It almost makes sense. And the problem is, if you look at the solar electricity costs on utility-scale farms, they have not really moved in the last few years. And I think this is in large part because we're designing the solar farms wrong, we're not designing them for the era of cheap panels, we're designing them, still, to track the sun, and complex mechanisms, and too much space between the panels, and too much mowing required, and all that. So as we adapt to the new paradigm of very, very cheap panels, I think that you'll get lower solar costs.I think the other thing that is obviously complimentary to all of these sources actually is battery innovation. I'm very excited about one particular new cathode chemistry that maybe could drive the cost way, way down for lithium ion batteries. And so you're in a world where solar and batteries is potentially very, very cheap. And so for nuclear and geothermal, they have some advantages over solar.If batteries get cheap, the advantage of not the firmness . . . I think people think that the advantage of these sources versus solar is just that solar is variable and the other sources are constant, but that's less of an advantage if batteries are cheap, and I think you also want batteries to be able to respond to the fluctuations in demand. If we had an entirely nuclear-powered economy, the nuclear plants actually want to run at constant speed. You don't want to ramp them up and down very quickly, but demand fluctuates. And so you still want batteries to be a buffer there and be the lowest-cost way to balance the network.So the things that nuclear and geothermal can really compete on is land density — even gigawatt-scale nuclear where you have these giant exclusion zones and tons of land around them and so on, they're still more dense per acre than solar, and geothermal is maybe even denser because you don't need that exclusion zone, and so they could be much, much better in terms of density.There's an advantage — if you want a lot of power in a city, you probably want that to be supplied by nuclear. If you're more rural, you could do solar. Another possibility is portability. So there's future versions of nuclear that are more mobile. People have talked about space-based nuclear for being able to go to Mars or something like that, you want thermonuclear propulsion and you can't do that with solar. Or powering submarines and stuff. So I think there's always a place for nuclear.And then the other advantage for both nuclear and geothermal is if you don't need to produce electricity. So if you're producing just the heat — it turns out a big part of the cost of any sort of thermal source is converting it to electricity. You have to have these giant steam turbines that are very capital intensive. And so, if you just need heat, say up to 600 degrees C heat for nuclear and maybe 400 degrees C heat for deep geothermal, those are really good sources for doing that, and maybe if we had continued advances in drilling technology for geothermal or if we could figure out the regulatory stuff for nuclear, I think you could have very cheap industrial thermal energy from either of those sources.Nuclear and geothermal are competing against a backdrop where we'll probably have pretty cheap solar, but there's still some advantages and these sources still have some utility and we should get good at both of them.What do you think that energy mix looks like in 25 years, the electrical generation mix for this country?It would be surprising if it wasn't a lot of solar. My friend Casey Handmer thinks it's going to be 90-plus percent solar, and I think that's a little crazy.Do you happen to know what the percent is now?Oh, I don't know. It's probably like three or four or something like that, off the top of my head, maybe less. The other question is, what's the base? I think a lot of people just want to replace the energy we have now with clean energy, and much more we need to be thinking about growing the energy supply. And so I think there's a question of how much solar we could deploy, but then also how much other stuff are we deploying? Let's do a lot of everything. You do have to drive the cost of some of these sources down a bit for it to make sense, but I think we can.And then the real gains happen when maybe some of these . . . what if you could do some sort of conversion without steam turbines? What if you had ways to convert the thermal energy to electricity without running a steam cycle, which is hundreds-of-year-old technology? EssentiallyYou're just finding a new way to heat it up.Yeah, so you look at why has solar come down so much? It's because it's solid-state, easy to manufacture, any manufacturing process improvements just move forward to all future solar panels. If we had thermoelectric generators or other ways of converting the heat to electricity, that could be really great, and then there's other kinds of nuclear that are like solid-state conversion, like alpha voltaics and things like that. So you could have a box with cobalt 60 in it that's decaying and producing particles that you're converting to electricity, and that would be solid state. It's sometimes called a “nuclear battery,” it's not really a battery, but that would be a way to power cars maybe with something like that. That would be awesome.Nuclear and geothermal are competing against a backdrop where we'll probably have pretty cheap solar, but there's still some advantages and these sources still have some utility and we should get good at both of them.The road to a breakthrough (30:25)When, if ever, this century, do you think we get AGI, and when, if ever, this century, do you think we get a commercial fusion reactor?AGI, I'm still not really a 100 percent clear on how it's defined. I think that AI will get increasingly more capable, and I think that's an exciting future. Do we even need to emulate every part of the human brain in silicon? I don't think so. Do we need it to have emotions? Do we need it to have its own independent drive? We definitely don't need it to be a perfect replica of a human brain in terms of every capability, but I think it will get more capable over time. I think there's going to be a lot of hidden ways in which AGI, or powerful AI, or highly capable AI is going to happen slower than we think.I think my base reasoning behind this is, if you look at neurons versus transistors, neurons are about a million times more energy efficient. So six orders of magnitude is kind of what we have to traverse to get something that is equally capable. And maybe there's some tricks or whatever that you can do that means you don't have to be equally capable on an energy basis, but you still need to get four orders of magnitude better. And then the other thing about it is that, if you look at current margins that people are working on, things like the ChatGPT o1 model, it's a lot slower, it does a lot of token generation behind the scenes to get the answer, and I think that that's the kind of stuff that could maybe drive progress.Let's say we have a world where you ask an AI for a cure for cancer, and you run it on a big data center, and it runs for six months or a year, and then it spits out the answer, here's the cure for cancer, that's still a world where we have very, very powerful AI, but it's slow and consumes a lot of resources, but still ultimately worth it. I think that might be where we're headed, in a way, is that kind of setup. And so is that AGI? Kind of. It's not operating the same way as humans are. So this is different.You're not going to fall in love with it. It's nothing like that.I'm pretty uncertain about AGI: A) what it means, but what does it even look like in the end?Fusion, I'll give you a hot take here, which is, I think there will be net energy gain fusion developed in this decade. I think that someone will have it. I think that probably the first people to get it will be doing it in a completely uneconomical way that will never work economically. Most of the people that are working on fusion are working on DT fusion, which is another one of these sources that basically produces heat, and then you use a steam turbine, and then that produces electricity. I think that the steam turbine is just a killer in terms of the added costs.So all these sources are basically fancy ways of boiling water and then running a steam turbine. So what you want to look at is: What is the cheapest way to boil water? With fission, you just hold two magic rocks together and they boil water. With geothermal, you drill a hole in the ground and send water down there and it boils. With these DT fusion reactors, you build the most complex machine mankind has ever seen, and you use that to boil water — that's not going to be as cheap as fission should be. So I think that we'll struggle to compete with fission if we can ever get our act together.There's other kinds of fusion called aneutronic fusion. That's harder to do. I think it's still possible, maybe this decade, that someone will crack it, but that's harder to do. But the nice thing about that is that you can harvest electricity from those plasmas without a steam turbine. So if it's going to be economical fusion, I think it's plausible by 2030 somebody could crack it, but it would be that aneutronic version, and it is just technically a bit harder. You'll see some reports in a couple of years, like, “Oh, these people, they got net energy out of a fusion reactor.” It's like, okay, it's a scientific breakthrough, but look for the cost. Is it going to be competitive with these other sources?Do we even need to emulate every part of the human brain in silicon? I don't think so . . . We definitely don't need it to be a perfect replica of a human brain in terms of every capability, but I think it will get more capable over time.Reforming NEPA (35:19)Do you think we've sort of got a handle, and we've begun to wrangle the National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA] to the ground? Where are we on reforming it so that it is not the kind of obstacle to progress that you've written so much about and been a real leader on?My base scenario is we're going to get reforms on it every two years. So we had some a year and a half ago with the Fiscal Responsibility Act, I think we were possibly going to get some in the lame duck session this year in Congress. None of these reforms are going to go far enough, is the bottom line. I think that the problem isn't going to go away, and so the pressure is going to continue to be there, and we're just going to keep having reforms every two years.And a lot of this is driven by the climate movement. So say what you will about the climate movement, they're the only mainstream movement in America right now that's not complacent, and they're going to keep pushing for, we've got to do something that lets us build. If we want to transform American industry, that means we've got to build, and NEPA gets in the way of building, so it's going to have to go.So I think my baseline case is we get some reforms this year in the lame duck, probably again two years later, probably again two years later, and then maybe like 2030, people have kind of had enough and they just say, “Oh, let's just repeal this thing. We keep trying to reform it, it doesn't work.” And I think you could repeal NEPA and the environment would be fine. I am pro-environment, but you don't need NEPA to protect the environment. I think it's just a matter of coming to terms with, this is a bad law and probably shouldn't exist.I am pro-environment, but you don't need NEPA to protect the environment. I think it's just a matter of coming to terms with, this is a bad law and probably shouldn't exist.The state of pro-abundance (37:08)What is the state of, broadly, a pro-abundance worldview? What is the state of that worldview in both parties right now?I think there's a growing, but very small, part of each party that is thinking in these terms, and I think the vision is not really concrete yet. I think they don't actually know what they're trying to achieve, but they kind of understand that it's something in this general direction that we've been talking about. My hope is that, obviously, the faction in both parties that is thinking this way grows, but then it also develops a little bit more of a concrete understanding of the future that we're trying to build, because I think without that more-concrete vision, you're not actually necessarily tackling the right obstacles, and you need to know where you're trying to go for you to be able to figure out what the obstacles are and what the problems you need to address are.Faster, Please! is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fasterplease.substack.com/subscribe

Lawmakers on the House and Senate Armed Services committees have previously signaled openness to boosting the Pentagon's budget beyond the 1% cap imposed by the Fiscal Responsibility Act.Now, top appropriators who allocate funding for the Pentagon are pushing for a higher topline number, but negotiations on going beyond the budget caps are “not going well.” “We are a long way from increasing the caps. There's a number of political reasons why that's the case. What I would tell the folks on both sides of the aisle is that if we don't do a good job in deterrence right now, it's going to cost us a hell of a lot more money later,” Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chair Jon Tester (D-Mont.) said during the Ash Carter Exchange conference Wednesday. “The negotiations on the budget caps are still in flux.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Lawmakers on the House and Senate Armed Services committees have previously signaled openness to boosting the Pentagon's budget beyond the 1% cap imposed by the Fiscal Responsibility Act. Now, top appropriators who allocate funding for the Pentagon are pushing for a higher topline number, but negotiations on going beyond the budget caps are “not going well.”  “We are a long way from increasing the caps. There's a number of political reasons why that's the case. What I would tell the folks on both sides of the aisle is that if we don't do a good job in deterrence right now, it's going to cost us a hell of a lot more money later,” Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chair Jon Tester (D-Mont.) said during the Ash Carter Exchange conference Wednesday. “The negotiations on the budget caps are still in flux.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

(AURN News) - President Joe Biden's proposed 2025 fiscal year budget ignited a fierce partisan debate last month over the administration's fiscal management and priorities. The White House maintains that the President has demonstrated fiscal responsibility, citing a $1 trillion reduction in the deficit since taking office and nearly $1 trillion in projected savings over the next decade.  However, House Republicans launched a blistering counterattack, accusing the President of proposing a historic $4.9 trillion tax increase and generating the largest debt in American history at $52.7 trillion.  The White House released a fact sheet in March lauding the President's economic stewardship. "The President has delivered this progress while fulfilling his commitment to fiscal responsibility. The deficit is over $1 trillion lower than when President Biden took office, thanks in large part to the strength of our economic recovery," the White House claimed, citing the Fiscal Responsibility Act and the Inflation Reduction Act's measures to empower Medicare drug price negotiations and ensure corporations pay a minimum tax. House Republicans fired back, with a post on X (formerly Twitter) denouncing the President's budget. The GOP asserted that the president's budget proposes a $4.9 trillion tax increase, the largest in history. They also accused Biden of saddling the nation with an unprecedented $52.7 trillion debt. Already staunchly against any support for student loan forgiveness, Republicans also took aim at the President's plans to invest $90 billion in free community college education. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

While passing the 2024 defense budget was arduous as lawmakers struggled to agree on government funding plans for nearly six months into the fiscal year, negotiating the 2025 defense spending is shaping up to be “particularly difficult.”The Pentagon proposed a fiscal 2025 budget of $849.8 billion, about 1% higher than this year's budget request. The top line figure aligns with the Fiscal Responsibility Act passed last year, which sets limits on defense and non-defense discretionary spending. Defense officials said the 1% increase would not be enough to cover inflation.“Overall, [fiscal 2024] was a good budget. As we pivot toward this year, I think it's a much more difficult budget, we're gonna see some very difficult trade-offs. I'm not sure if we're going to see as positive outcomes as all communities might want see,” Matt Borron, the Association of Defense Communities executive director, said during the Defense Communities National Summit on Tuesday. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

While passing the 2024 defense budget was arduous as lawmakers struggled to agree on government funding plans for nearly six months into the fiscal year, negotiating the 2025 defense spending is shaping up to be “particularly difficult.” The Pentagon proposed a fiscal 2025 budget of $849.8 billion, about 1% higher than this year's budget request. The top line figure aligns with the Fiscal Responsibility Act passed last year, which sets limits on defense and non-defense discretionary spending. Defense officials said the 1% increase would not be enough to cover inflation. “Overall, [fiscal 2024] was a good budget. As we pivot toward this year, I think it's a much more difficult budget, we're gonna see some very difficult trade-offs. I'm not sure if we're going to see as positive outcomes as all communities might want see,” Matt Borron, the Association of Defense Communities executive director, said during the Defense Communities National Summit on Tuesday. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

So if you've listened to me for any length of time, you'll know I respect Liam Dann very much indeed. Liam is the Herald's Business Editor at Large. He hosts podcasts and writes stories about the business world and he's been at the NZ Herald for 21 years. He's at pains to stress he's not an economist. He's the guy who interviews economists and then translates their technical stuff into news we can all use and we need. He's just written a book called Barbecue Economics, which explains all this stuff for the average man and woman on the street. He also writes a column every Sunday, and yesterday he asked the question I've been asking myself for a long time. "Is the Government's shock about this 'worse than expected' economy political theatre or just ignorance?" Last August, Nicola Willis stated the cupboard was bare, and we all knew that. They then campaigned on fixing it all up. Killing inflation. Solving the cost of living crisis. Building the missing infrastructure. And then on top of it all, giving up on $14.5 billion worth of tax revenue by giving us a tax cut. But some of us wondered that if the cupboard was indeed bare, was all this possible or was this exaggerated rhetoric to get votes based on some magical thinking that all will be fine in the end? Now the Finance Minister is saying the economy is worse than expected and maybe some of the policies can't happen. I'm not sure it is worse than expected, because the government's accounts have never been secret- thanks to the Fiscal Responsibility Act introduced in 1994 to stop nasty surprises. And people were warning National of this last year. Liam Dann reckons: "To put it generously, it looks like National was using best-case economic scenarios to justify policy promises that were marginal at best." The question that remains is whether National knew the promises they were making were unaffordable or whether they just don't know what's going on. Or to put it more bluntly. Are they stupid or were they lying? And if they were exaggerating their ability to afford their policies, did they think we'd be too stupid to realise? We all got sick and tired of the last Government gaslighting us and making promises they can't keep. I'm not going to be happy if it happens again. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A group of House Republicans have aired their discontent with the possibility of government funding if it doesn't incorporate substantial border fortification initiatives. This statement came to light following last Sunday's proclamation of a bipartisan arrangement to keep the government functioning through the end of 2024. The declaration was jointly made by Mike Johnson, the House Speaker, Chuck Schumer, Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. Their financial plan corresponds with the terms previously assured by Kevin McCarthy during his tenure as House Speaker, and President Joe Biden, embedded within the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023. However, this deal hasn't sat well with the conservative faction within the House of Representatives. A faction fears that without decisive action to halt unlawful immigration across the southern border, they may feel compelled to oppose the government funding agreement, potentially triggering a government shutdown. Their views echo sentiments expressed by Republican Representatives Andy Biggs of Arizona and Matt Gaetz of Florida.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today we discuss reality setting in on the Ukraine war, the rich including the left are backing warmonger Nikki Haley, The Atlantic says inflation is YOUR FAULT and the results of the “Fiscal Responsibility Act” are proving my theory about … Continue reading →

Investors are questioning whether a new U.S. Speaker in the House of Representatives will push for fresh legislation, and whether a potential government shutdown is on the horizon.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the impact to markets from Congress's agenda. It's Wednesday, November 1st at 10 a.m. in New York. Last week in D.C., following a few weeks of Republicans failing to coalesce around a nominee, the House of Representatives chose a speaker, Republican Mike Johnson. So, with a new speaker in place, does that mean investors need to rethink their expectations about legislation that could impact markets? Not exactly. At least not before the next presidential election. Here's three takeaways from us to keep in mind. First, a new speaker doesn't mean new momentum for most of the legislation that investors tell us they care about. For example, fresh regulations for social media or cryptocurrency are no closer as a result of having a new speaker. Those are issues both parties are keen to tackle but are still working out exactly how they'd like to tackle them. Second, a government shutdown still remains a possibility. Speaker Johnson has said avoiding a shutdown is a priority for him, stating he would allow a vote on another stopgap spending measure to give Congress more time to agree on longer term funding levels. But such a stopgap measure could also reflect that House Republicans haven't yet solved for their own internal disagreement on key funding measures, such as aid for Ukraine. If that's the case, then a shutdown later this year or early next year remains a possibility. And, while on its own, a brief shutdown wouldn't meaningfully affect the economy, markets will reflect a higher probability of weaker growth on the horizon, particularly as failure to agree on longer term funding would put in play an automatic government spending cut under current law. Third and finally, military aid and funding is likely to be a source of intense debate in Congress but we still expect defense spending to rise, supporting the aerospace and defense sectors in the equity market. Two factors give us comfort here. First, the Fiscal Responsibility Act, which was the bill that was passed to raise the debt ceiling, also laid out multi-year government spending targets that include an increase in defense spending. Being already passed by Congress, we expect this is the template they'll work within. Second, while a sufficient minority of the House Republican caucus is skeptical of further aid to Ukraine, such aid enjoys broader bipartisan support across all of Congress. So we expect any spending bill that makes its way through Congress is likely to have that aid. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.

All eyes are on the Budget 2024 tabling this Friday, with a lot of scrutiny on how the government plans to narrow the fiscal deficit in line with recently passed Public Finance and Fiscal Responsibility Act. How will this new law and Budget 2024 shape Malaysia's economic policies moving forward? Economist Dr. Afzanizam Abdul Rashid gives us a preview of expectations for the budget.Brought to you by Mah Sing. Reinvent Spaces. Enhance Life.Image credit: Shutterstock.com

Learn how a government shutdown would impact your finances. Plus: updates on inflation, retail sales and Delta SkyMiles. In this financial news roundup, hosts Sean Pyles and Anna Helhoski touch on key headlines such as what the latest Consumer Price Index tells us about inflation, the reason why retail sales are surging, and controversial changes to Delta Airlines' SkyMiles program. They then take a close look at the looming threat of a government shutdown in Congress, particularly in the House of Representatives. Learn about the complex backdrop of budget negotiations, the economic consequences of a government shutdown, its impact on federal employees, and precautions you could take in order to prepare for financial challenges during a shutdown. In their conversation, the Nerds discuss: personal finance news, inflation, retail sales, the Consumer Price Index (CPI), Delta SkyMiles changes, a potential government shutdown, the Fiscal Responsibility Act, budget negotiations, government funding, federal employees, essential bills, financial assistance, federal benefits, interest rates, used car prices, rental rates, airfares, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP benefits, government shutdown consequences, and bill prioritization. To send the Nerds your money questions, call or text the Nerd hotline at 901-730-6373 or email podcast@nerdwallet.com.

Vi ricordate la crisi del tetto del debito negli Stati Uniti che è stata “risolta” grazie al Fiscal Responsibility Act lo scorso giugno? Ecco, in realtà non è mai stata “risolta” e gli squilibri politici stanno ora minando la sostenibilità del debito statunitense, contribuendo a radicare un'inflazione strutturalmente più elevata.   Tratto da “Le prospettive settimanali del CIO” a cura Joseph V. Amato, President and Chief Investment Officer—Equities di Neuberger Berman.       Questi podcast includono commenti generali di mercato, contenuti formativi di carattere generale sugli investimenti e informazioni generali su Neuberger Berman. I podcast sono solo a scopo informativo e nulla qui presente costituisce una consulenza in materia di investimenti, legale, contabile o fiscale o una raccomandazione per l'acquisto, la vendita o la detenzione di un titolo. La presente comunicazione non è diretta a nessun investitore in particolare o categoria di investitori e non deve essere considerata come un consiglio di investimento o un suggerimento per intraprendere o astenersi da qualsiasi linea di condotta relativa agli investimenti. Le decisioni di investimento dovrebbero essere prese sulla base degli obiettivi e delle circostanze individuali di un investitore e in consulenza con i suoi consulenti. Le informazioni sono ottenute da fonti ritenute affidabili, ma non esiste alcuna dichiarazione o garanzia in merito alla loro accuratezza, completezza o affidabilità. Tutte le informazioni sono aggiornate alla data di registrazione dei podcast e sono soggette a modifiche senza preavviso. Eventuali opinioni o view qui espresse potrebbero non riflettere quelle della società nel suo complesso. Questo materiale può includere stime, prospettive, proiezioni e altre "dichiarazioni previsionali". A causa di una varietà di fattori, gli eventi effettivi o il comportamento del mercato possono differire in modo significativo dalle opinioni qui espresse. I prodotti e i servizi di Neuberger Berman potrebbero non essere disponibili in tutte le giurisdizioni o per tutti i tipi di clienti. La diversificazione non garantisce il profitto né protegge dalle perdite nei mercati in declino. Investire comporta dei rischi inclusa la possibile perdita del capitale. Gli investimenti in hedge fund e private equity sono speculativi, comportano un grado di rischio più elevato rispetto agli investimenti più tradizionali e sono destinati esclusivamente a investitori sofisticati. Gli indici non sono gestiti e non sono disponibili per l'investimento diretto. I rendimenti passati non sono un indicatore affidabile di rendimenti attuali o futuri.   Le opinioni espresse nel presente documento possono includere quelle del team Multi Asset Class di Neuberger Berman (MAC) e del Comicato di Asset Allocation (AAC) di Neuberger Berman. Le opinioni del team MAC e dell'AAC potrebbero non riflettere le opinioni della società nel suo complesso. Gli advisor e i gestori di portafoglio di Neuberger Berman potrebbero assumere posizioni contrarie alle view o opinioni del team MAC. Il team MAC e le opinioni della CAA non costituiscono una previsione di eventi futuri o comportamenti futuri del mercato.   Le discussioni su settori e aziende specifici sono solo a scopo informativo. Questo materiale non è inteso come un report di ricerca formale e non dovrebbe essere considerato come una base per prendere decisioni di investimento. La società, i suoi dipendenti e gli advisor possono detenere posizioni di qualsiasi società qui discussa. I titoli specifici identificati e descritti non rappresentano tutti i titoli acquistati, venduti o consigliati per i clienti nell'ambito dell'attività di consulenza. Non si deve presumere che gli investimenti in titoli, società, settori o mercati identificati e descritti siano stati o saranno redditizi. Qualsiasi discussione sui fattori e rating ambientali, sociali e di governance (ESG) è solo a scopo informativo e non deve essere considerata come base per prendere una decisione di investimento. I fattori ESG sono uno dei tanti fattori che possono essere considerati quando si prendono decisioni di investimento.     Il presente materiale viene pubblicato, fatte salve le restrizioni giurisdizionali, tramite varie controllate e affiliate globali di Neuberger Berman Group LLC. Per informazioni sulle entità specifiche e sulle limitazioni e restrizioni a livello giurisdizionale visitate il sito www.nb.com/disclosure-global-communications.   Il nome e il logo “Neuberger Berman” sono marchi di servizio registrati di Neuberger Berman Group LLC.   © 2023 Neuberger Berman Group LLC. Tutti i diritti riservati.

In this episode, Johanna Bozuwa of the Climate and Community Project shares a progressive vision for permitting reform and the factors that could speed up the US clean-energy buildout.(PDF transcript)(Active transcript)Text transcript:David RobertsTo achieve its Paris climate targets, the US is going to have to build out an enormous amount of clean energy and clean-energy infrastructure in coming years. But that buildout is going slowly — painfully, excruciatingly slowly — relative to the pace that is necessary.This has given rise to considerable debate on the left over what, exactly, is slowing things down. Much of that debate has come to focus on permitting, and more specifically, on permitting under the National Environmental Protection Act, or NEPA.A deal that would have put some restrictions on NEPA in exchange for reforms to transmission planning was effectively killed by progressives toward the end of the last congressional session, leading many people inside and outside the climate movement to accuse progressives of being The Problem. They are so attached to slowing down fossil fuel development with NEPA, the accusation goes, that they are willing to live with it slowing clean energy. And that's a bad trade.Progressives, not surprisingly, disagree! Their take on the whole permitting debate is summarized in a new paper from the Roosevelt Institute and the Climate and Community Project: “A Progressive Vision for Permitting Reform.”The title is slightly misleading, since one of the central points of the paper is that permitting under NEPA is only a small piece of the puzzle — there are many other factors that play a role in slowing clean energy, and many other reforms that could do more to speed it up. I called up one of the paper's co-authors, Johanna Bozuwa of the Climate and Community Project, to ask her about those other reforms, the larger political debate, and the progressive community's take on speed. All right, then. With no further ado, Johanna Bozuwa from the Climate and Community Project. Welcome to Volts, and thank you so much for coming.Johanna BozuwaThank you so much for having me, David.David RobertsThis is a hot topic, as you're well aware, permitting and the larger issues around it. And so, before we jump into specifics, I wanted to start with a few sort of broad, call them philosophical, questions.Johanna BozuwaPerfect.David RobertsAs you know, progressives have been under quite a bit of fire lately, not only from their typical opponents on the right and in the fossil fuel industry, but from a lot of sort of centrists and even a lot of sort of allies in the climate movement. For — I think the general idea is they are too attached to stopping fossil fuels and not yet supportive enough of building out renewable energy. And the mechanisms that they rely on to slow and stop fossil fuels are also slowing and stopping renewable energy. And so I think the general critique is that they ought to swing around and be more pro-building and loosen these requirements, et cetera, et cetera. I'm sure you've heard all this.Johanna BozuwaYes.David RobertsSo I guess I'd just start with this question. Is, do you think the progressive — and by the way, I meant to say this by way of a caveat, I'm going to be sort of using you as a spokesperson for progressivism, which I think we both realize is ridiculous.Johanna BozuwaRight, exactly.David RobertsProgressives are heterogeneous just like anybody else. There's no official progressive position. But as a crude, let's just say as a crude instrument here, we're going to ask you to speak for that perspective as you see it.Johanna BozuwaPerfect.David RobertsSo in your opinion, do you think progressives have taken it into their heart that things are moving too slowly and they desperately need to move faster?Johanna BozuwaMy answer to that question is that I think speed is progressive. You know, David, I don't need to tell this to you or any of the people that listen to this podcast or even progressives. We're dealing with the existential threat of the climate crisis and lives are on the line. And so I think that as progressives, we do need to take the speed question seriously. And I think what I would push back on is the fact that people have this myopic focus on permitting as the thing that's slowing everything down. And especially when I'm talking about permitting, NEPA permitting.David RobertsRight. We're going to definitely get to that.Johanna BozuwaYeah. And I just think that when it comes to this question of "Do progressives believe in speed?" I think that they actually very much do. And one of the things that I get frustrated with sometimes, when I hear these arguments like "Oh, progressives don't want to build anything," I think what progressives are interested in is building the right thing. And if we think about the United States and how our energy system rolls out today, we have a real issue that fossil fuels can expand at the same time as renewable energy is expanding. Like when it comes to fossil fuels, we can actually export that.We are now the biggest net exporter of LNG and crude oil. And I think that progressives are particularly aware that if we do the wrong thing on permitting then we're actually not only expanding renewable energy — and maybe poorly done renewable energy — but also the fossil fuel industry knows how to use these tools so much better than our renewable energy developers. And we are going to see just a massive expansion that we absolutely don't need right now. If we think the climate crisis matters.David RobertsWhat about the argument which goes like this: Fossil fuels are reaching sort of a structural peak and decline. Renewable energy is getting cheaper and cheaper and cheaper. It's on the rise. So if you just, all things being equal, make it easier to build everything across the board, renewable energy will win that race and so it's worth doing.Johanna BozuwaI just don't think that argument is true, look at how much power the fossil fuel industry still has in making these decisions. Like if we look at who is behind the recent push for permitting reform: It was largely the oil and gas industry. There's definitely some more nuance that's there, but they have significant power to move things and move them faster than the clean energy world. It's a question of when you're rolling back some of these bedrock environmental laws that the pie — it's not that the part of renewable energy in the pie is getting bigger. It's that even if we are getting more renewable energy, the pie itself has expanded so that we're having fossil fuels and renewables expanding at the same time.And it's not fully pushing out the power of the fossil fuel industry.David RobertsWell, then, how about this? And this is the final philosophical question before we get down to some nuts and bolts. Do you agree that there are going to be trade-offs as we pursue speed? This is, of course, the big discussion right now is that if you really double down on speed, if you really pursue speed with everything you've got, there are inevitably going to be some trade-offs, some other progressive values that have to take a backseat. And that might be other environmental impacts. It might be impacts on communities. It might be, you know, name it. It might be that we have to loosen up a little bit on those other things.Do you think that there are those trade-offs?Johanna BozuwaI think that there are some trade-offs. You, I think, had my colleague, Thea Riofrancos, on the pod some time ago talking about lithium extraction, right? And the fact that if we are going to decarbonize our transportation sector, it is going to take extraction in order to accomplish that. Right. And there are substantial and significant impacts that has in terms of water contamination in some of the most drought-impacted parts of the United States, that is something that we need to be thinking about. And I think what my hesitation is when it comes to so much of this conversation is that we're talking about deregulation as the way to do speed instead of actually talking about planning and coordination.And from my perspective, it's the planning and coordination that allows us to think through the decisions we're making with a far better sense of what's happening instead of a "get government out of the way, we'll figure it out" project that — it didn't really do great things for the planet. Are we going to do that again and trying to fix it? That seems like a silly mistake to make.David RobertsYeah, that's a really important distinction. I'm glad we get that out up front. Because I hate when we go from, "Yes, there are trade-offs" to therefore "Let it rip, let everything go." As Thea said on the podcast, we can acknowledge those trade-offs and thoughtfully try to minimize them through planning.Johanna BozuwaExactly.David RobertsSo let's start with this. As you say, there's this sort of what we're calling the permitting debate, quote unquote. Permitting debate is actually a bunch of debates and they're all kind of getting squished together under this notion of permitting. But in fact, there's a lot of things going on here other than permitting. So maybe talk just a little bit about all the disparate things that are now sort of getting lumped together under that rubric.Johanna BozuwaExactly. So I think just to put a point on it, often when people are talking about permitting, they're talking about this unfocused conversation about cutting red tape. But really what it comes down to is where the fight is right now in particular on the national stage is around NEPA. So the National Environmental Policy Act, but wrapped up into all of their arguments are all these other pieces that actually are maybe more of the problem than particularly NEPA. So, you know, four of them, just to start us off, obviously we do have NEPA. That's part of the permitting process.We have local and state zoning permits, approvals, things like that. You know, going to Georgia County to make sure that you can put something through. Then you have third, these contracts or arrangements that are actually between private organizations. David, I know you had folks talking about internet connection queues — that often is part of the permitting debate, but it's actually about who gets to go onto the transmission that's being built.David RobertsLet me pause there because I want to make a point that I'm not sure everybody understands and I'm not even sure we made it in that pod. But the ISOs, the ...Johanna BozuwaIndependent service operators. I know I always mess it up. RTOs. ISOs.David RobertsYes, I know. ISOs and RTOs. I could never call that to mind. But anyway, the ones who are sort of running the transmission systems and running these queues are not public organizations. Those are not state organizations. They are private consortia of transmission organizations and utilities and things like that. So it's not something that the state can come in and just directly change. I just think that's worth sort of putting on the record.Johanna BozuwaI think that's a really important point and I think we'll probably dig into this further. But the idea that and I think you talked about this on the pod last time, but there are so many different kind of private actors that are operating within the RTOs and ISOs with not actually a huge amount of oversight, as it currently stands.David RobertsYes, or transparency.Johanna BozuwaOr transparency.David RobertsOr accountability, really.Johanna BozuwaYeah, exactly. And it turns out if we're looking at what's really miring the buildout of renewable energy, a solid amount of it is right there. Is in the interconnection queues. I think it was Southwest PowerPool — takes like eight years sometimes to get the developer to get their project through. And those are for projects that already have their offtaker and have all their permitting in place. So it just feels quite misguided for us to spend all of this time talking about permitting when we could be actually diagnosing the problem —David RobertsAnd you said there was a fourth.Johanna Bozuwa— and there's a fourth. The fourth one, I would say, is just operation and construction permits, like some of the pollution discharge stuff that is at some of these more local levels. And those four don't even include some of the other things that stop things, which is like access to capital, utility squabbles, supply chain slowdowns, these whole host of other issues that are just being swept under the rug because it's very alluring to say, guess what? I have the one quick fix to make sure that renewable energy gets built in the United States.David RobertsAnd local NIMBYism. I'd throw that in.Johanna BozuwaYeah, yeah, local NIMBYism, absolutely. Add it to the pile, exactly. So and NEPA's not going to do things about local NIMBYism in the same way that's the local and state zoning stuff.David RobertsYeah, I think people really want, for obvious reasons, they're frustrated by everything going so slowly and everybody wants there to be sort of like something to cut the Gordian knot, sort of one, as you said, one weird trick. And that's, I think, why people are grasping onto NEPA because it seems like that's one big thing we can argue about and change. But as you say, the reasons here are very disparate. But let's just take a second to talk about NEPA. I go back and forth on this, but is it, do you think the progressive position that NEPA is okay "as is" and doesn't need any changes?Like, do you think there are problems with NEPA and how it's administered?Johanna BozuwaOkay. My feeling on this is that the case about NEPA is overstated, especially as we describe so many other things, even outside of the permitting process that matters. But if we're going to talk about NEPA, I think overall the projects are going through pretty quickly. There was a new study, actually, this month by, I think, David Adelman that did a really comprehensive look at wind and solar NEPA reviews over the past ten years, and he found that less than 5% of Wind and solar projects required. The EIS, like the Environmental Impact Statement, which is the one that takes the most time usually, can be two and a half years or whatever, but they're going through with categorical exclusions or some of these faster ways to move wind and solar projects through, or just projects in general.And he found that there was very little litigation involved, which is often like the dog whistle, I feel like, of some of these folks who are calling for permitting.David RobertsYeah, I was surprised when I looked at that study. It's a relatively low percentage of those projects that get litigated after they're done.Johanna BozuwaRight, exactly. And I think if I were to make any improvements to NEPA, the thing I would do is bulk up the administrative state. Jamie Gibbs Pleune wrote a kind of corresponding piece of research to our permitting report where she investigated and talked about NEPA in particular with Roosevelt. But she was looking at another paper and found of 40,000 NEPA decisions that the US Forest Service looked at, the biggest causes of delays were actually from a lack of experienced staff, budget instability, and honestly, delays from the applicants themselves not getting their stuff in on time. So I just feel as if we're going to do anything to make NEPA better, give the BLM, give US Forest Service, give EPA far more funds, training, staff empowerment that's going to actually move these projects even faster through the pipeline when they're actually moving relatively quickly.And these places have experienced chronic understaffing and lack of empowerment. So there is work to be done there. I don't want to understate that, but I think that it's a reasonable thing for us to accomplish without rolling back and applying a very neoliberal frame to how we get this job done.David RobertsYeah, I would say it does seem like NEPA has sprawled a bit since it was passed. Originally, it was supposed to be major projects that came under NEPA review, and the court basically decided that all projects were under NEPA review. And so there's just thousands and thousands now that just have these little sort of not very long delays because they get these categorical exemptions. But there's just a lot of — it's very sprawling, it seems like, and unfocused. This is one of those areas where I feel like there are procedures of the administrative state that could work better and more effectively.But at this point, liberals, they've just been under assault for so long. And liberals just know if you open this can of worms, if you open it up to review, there's just a pool of piranhas that want to go in and strip it bare. And so they just don't open it for review. Like, there's so many things like this. Like, if we could have a good faith process of actually trying to do what NEPA is supposed to do better than NEPA does it, I feel like, yeah, there's stuff we could improve, but Joe Manchin doesn't want to improve it.Johanna BozuwaWe don't want Joe Manchin in charge of what NEPA looks like and what's the more muscular version that takes into consideration the real-life climate impacts. Because I don't know when you're talking there, David, a thing that comes up for me is the reality that we will have more things happening on the ground. Like, let's say you put transmission in, we have a wildfire crisis. Now all of a sudden, the stakes are higher when it comes to these things like environmental review that are very material that I think also aren't talked about as much as they should be. And so, yeah, I can imagine things being shifted and changed within NEPA so that it works better for the current context.But I think that, as you describe it, could be a real political problem for us to do that type of work right now. And we have other mechanisms that can move us much more quickly in the interim. Like, is this really the thing we want to be spending our time on as progressives? The answer is no.David RobertsAnd I also think if you look at the reforms that were sort of ended up getting jammed through, like of all the thoughtful things you could do to NEPA to make it work better, just a sort of — page limit, like a page limit on reviews: Seems like it's such a blunt instrument. It's such a crude way of approaching this.Johanna BozuwaOh, and I think it's going to get them into serious trouble. If you want a thing that is going to increase litigation, try adding an arbitrary deadline and page limit to something with no administrative capacity.David RobertsOkay. We could do a whole pod on NEPA, but I don't want to get too — our whole point is it's not the sole or even main impediment here. So at a slightly more granular level, let's talk about what you think is actually slowing down clean energy infrastructure build out. And there's a few categories your report covers starting with transmission, which is, I think, the big one.Johanna BozuwaYeah, totally. And I would agree with you. I mean, transmission planning is kind of in shambles in this country. It's not up to the job.David RobertsYeah, I don't think literally anybody on any side of anything would disagree with you about that.Johanna BozuwaExactly. And I think there are a couple of reasons for that. One is that multistate transmission buildouts are incredibly hard to do in a federalized system. We just have so many different actors that are vying to hold on to their particular part of the market, especially with our vertically integrated utilities that don't have much interest in allowing other utilities into their service territory. And in deregulated states, utilities are kind of out of the picture for deciding where new generation is being built. So there's not a lot of efficiencies that are built into that. So we just get this really haphazard development, if development at all, of our transmission system, which I think is just quite a failure.There are so many clear opportunities to do much more clear planning around this.David RobertsYes. And then what about big large-scale renewable energy projects like big solar, wind, geothermal, what is in practice, slowing down their build out?Johanna BozuwaYeah, so I think that when it comes to some of these larger scale projects around solar or wind, you're running again into projects that aren't thinking strategically about where they're being placed. So if we're looking at the amount of land that we're going to need with the energy transition right. Wind and solar take more space up than one natural gas plant. And I think that there's just like a clear lack of land use planning when it comes to these larger scale projects when we could be doing it far better. Right. And thinking about what are the areas that make sense and are going to limit the amount of impact on our landscape and on communities and actually deploy it in those areas.And I actually think there are answers to that question.David RobertsWell, we're not to answers yet. We're dwelling on problems.Johanna BozuwaOkay, all right —David RobertsSo how does that slow down? I mean, what does that manifest as? How does that slow down the build out?Johanna BozuwaYeah, well, the way that that manifests is that you're putting big renewable energy projects in tension with things like agriculture. You're putting big renewable projects in tension with our biodiversity goals. And so those are the things that are going to potentially mire the development and deployment of these larger scale projects — in addition to getting them attached to the transmission and making sure that it's colocated with the transmission we need.David RobertsYes, the aforementioned interconnection queue issue, which alone is like, "That's a lot of years," which as you say, that's a lot of years tacked on the end of all the other stuff they have to go through. Like once they have to go through all that other stuff, then they get in the interconnection queue and wait and wither, etc. And then another thing you take on here is a big piece of the clean energy buildout, which I think a lot of people don't really think about as much, maybe don't enjoy thinking about as much, which is the sort of minerals and metals aspect of it. A big part of IRA, the Inflation Reduction Act, is an attempt to onshore supply chains so that China does not dominate them.But that means onshoring some mines and some minerals processing which are not necessarily environmentally friendly, not necessarily things people like having in their backyard. So what's slowing those things down?Johanna BozuwaI guess I would say there are two pieces that are happening. One is just that this is a pretty new area and there are so many price fluctuations that are happening. There's all of these big mining companies that are shifting ownership, trying to figure out financing. Right? So there's a lot that's happening there. And mining companies are not the best known for having perfect environmental impact statements or anything like that, that's going to get them mired right. And then you add in the fact that as we talked about earlier, a lot of where these lithium reserves are is also in extremely — like the likelihood for drought is a lot higher if you're looking, for instance, at the Salton Sea in California or, you know, over in Nevada, these are places that we actually have to be extremely careful about. And also it just takes a really long time to build a mine like this isn't something that happens the next day. Right. It's like 10 to 15 years in the future type thing. So it is a longer time frame that's going to be even longer if we aren't thinking, again, about who is impacted, how they are going to be impacted by the mining itself. What is that going to do to air quality, water quality, all of these different things?It's a really big part of the permitting discussion, or of the transition discussion in particular that is being discounted in the United States.David RobertsAnd one more bit on problems, before we transition to recommendations. I noticed that one thing you don't get into a lot in the report is the expression of those state and local level permitting issues. And a lot of those I think, are tied to environmental review. And a lot — like, for instance, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is just sort of like legendarily at this point, a tool for local NIMBYs to stop things happening. Like we just read a story that was bouncing around Twitter a few days ago about these wealthy people — I forget what county they were in — but they were suing because someone had moved a playground closer to their house.They didn't like the sound of the kids playing and so they sued. And part of it was that the city had not done a proper environmental review under CEQA of moving the playground. And you hear stories like that all the time. Do you think you said that NEPA is not as big a problem as people say? Do you think state level environmental review is a serious problem, a serious barrier, at least in some places?Johanna BozuwaI think it just really depends on the place. And I think that's part of why as we were writing a national paper, being able to dig into the detail and differentiations between all of these different places seemed like a big haul for a small paper. So yeah, I think that there are these pieces at the local level, the zoning things, right? People are historic preservation boards that are saying like, "No rooftop solar because we don't like the look of it." Yeah, that's some BS in my mind and I think we do need to figure out how to manage that.And I think what this comes into conversation with is a little bit of like, what is the community review process? What does that look like and how do we manage that?David RobertsContemplating the variety and number of those instruments at the state and local level is really overwhelming and really does make the problem feel so intractable because it's just like, as you say in a federalist system, it's like every bit of reform is not just one bit, it's 50 bits. Every bit is 50 fights.Johanna BozuwaTotally agree. And I think that's why we get stuck in these gridlocks sometimes. And also when we get to solutions, I think there are some examples that we can draw on and utilize our little multi tool of ideas of how to move this forward.David RobertsFinal thing before that, because I forgot about this bit, but actually it's worth making a note that it's actually easier for fossil fuel infrastructure to get NEPA permits than it is for clean energy projects. It's something you note in the paper. If anything, NEPA is easier on these pipelines and stuff. Even though Joe Manchin is complaining ceaselessly about it.Johanna BozuwaYes, and I mean, I think that's why in particular, people who have been fighting the fossil fuel industry for so long, look to this group of folks, more center left folks, that are saying "Repeal NEPA, let's do it, we want to build." They're saying, "Oh my gosh. What you're doing by saying that is saying that the West Virginian that I have been fighting alongside is going to be decimated by this pipeline that's being passed now." So there are really high stakes and in a lot of the permitting process that we saw at the federal level, it also implicated the Mountain Valley pipeline.Right. And that type of infrastructure getting a pass when it couldn't even get some of its permits at the state level to just go forth is a really, I think, scary potential because that locks us into decades of extraction.David RobertsYeah, I feel like that was not covered well when this whole thing happened. You know, the Mountain Valley Pipeline: It's not that it was like stuck unfairly in a bureaucratic tangle. It just sort of straightforwardly was polluting and so it couldn't get the permits, the permits were rejected. It wasn't like stuck in some queue or something. It was just straightforwardly a polluting project that could not qualify under US law to go on. And it was just like jammed through. So I feel like the outrage of that didn't really penetrate partially because everybody's on this like "everything needs to go faster tip" and so they just kind of slotted it under there.But we don't want things that straightforwardly fail environmental review going forward do we?Johanna BozuwaExactly, like, I would like, that the Cuyahoga River does not catch on fire again. And that's the reason we have environmental review and NEPA. And also I would like it to be able to stop more fossil fuel infrastructure.David RobertsYeah, I know. And this is the other thing too, as though we're supposed to have some sort of content neutral opinions about permitting as such. I'm just like, "Well, I want more good stuff and less bad stuff. Can I have that opinion?"Johanna BozuwaExactly. That's so crucial too, where there are ways for us to stop permitting new fossil fuel infrastructure and permit the hell out of good renewable energy projects. That's a political possibility that Biden actually had signed up for and now is stepping back on.David RobertsYeah, I mean, it's politically tough, but let's be positive here. You have a lot of recommendations in here, all of which are juicy, all of which could probably have a podcast of their own on them. There's no way we can cover them all. But you sort of have your principles and recommendations grouped under three headings. And the first one, which I think is the one that is most directly germane to the speed question, is enabling more coordination and planning. And I think this is a huge thing. This is one of my soapboxes I get on all the time.I really want the climate movement to take this up is that we've had decades and decades of for lack of a better term, neoliberalism and this sort of instinctive free market stuff. And it's not like any major developed economy actually stops planning. What happens when you claim you're not planning and you claim you're being a free market is you just move planning behind closed doors or bury it in the tax code where no one can see it or understand what's happening. And then that results in whoever has the most power and money winning the planning fights.So I'm done with my soapbox. Let's talk about restoring our ability to do public, transparent, cooperative planning. Let's talk about a few of the items under here. And first is just land use planning. What do you mean by that and what would it look like?Johanna BozuwaSo, land use planning, as we talked about earlier, it turns out that one fossil fuel plant is a lot smaller than the types of assets that we need to build. That's just a reality of what we're working with. And so that necessitates far more land use planning to think about how do we get the most out of the least amount of space that is going to do the best for keeping the lights on. And so there are examples of how we can do this type of land planning. And one example I want to bring up actually is in California.So there was the Desert Renewable Energy Plan that was basically where states and federal agencies came together and they were looking at the Mojave and Colorado desert area. It's like 22 million acres.David RobertsVery sunny.Johanna BozuwaYeah, very sunny, exactly. Very sunny, very good for some solar. And what they did is that they coordinated a plan for this entire region so that it was prescreened for issues. So they said, okay, we're going to look at the biodiversity impacts of things being put here. We're going to look at the cultural or tribal impacts, the environmental potential impacts. And so after they did that kind of, what's called often like a programmatic study, that meant that the developers that came in to build the stuff there don't have to go through some more involved environmental impact assessment or study because it's already done.And so that meant that because they had done all of that work ahead of time, projects are getting approved so much faster. They're getting approved in less than ten months. And have, I think it's been now this zone has been around for about ten years and I don't think there is one litigation case. So that is just such a good example of land use planning where it's like thinking ahead of what we need and how we're going to do it. And that still does allow for private developers to come in, even though I might even argue that we could do even more planning and fill in the gaps with some public transmission or public renewable energy.But we can get into that later.David RobertsAnd we did an example from California, so I think now we're constitutionally obliged to do one from Texas too.Johanna BozuwaAbsolutely. Well, exactly. Thank you for setting me up so neatly, David, for the Competitive Renewable Energy Zones of Texas, which was such a success. So this is a very similar situation where the legislature directed the PUC, the Public Utilities Commission to plan where new generation and transmission was going to be located, routed, all of this. And so by doing so, they allowed for this proliferation of wind in Texas, a place where you might not expect a massive amount of wind to be. And I was reading a study the other day that said that in the past ten years, the CREZ line, so the Competitive Renewable Energy Zone, represents 23% of all new high voltage lines in the US.David RobertsGood grief.Johanna BozuwaRight?David RobertsYeah. They're actually building I mean, I don't know if people know this, they're actually building transmission in Texas. I'll just talk about how transmission never gets built. They're building it there because —Johanna BozuwaThey had a plan.David RobertsThey planned in advance. Yes, they had zones where it got approved and so you didn't have to then go there and do the entire like a transmission developer didn't have to go somewhere and then do the entire thing. Right. Do the entire review, do the entire land use review and the environmental review. They didn't have to start over every time that stuff was done in advance.Okay, point made. There more land use coordination and planning. That's the states doing it. But you could imagine the feds getting into that somewhat. You have these jurisdictional issues and federalism issues that are a bit of a tangle, but it does seem like the feds at the very least could do some informational, advisory planning and assessment on a bigger level, don't you think?Johanna BozuwaOh, absolutely. Actually, we do have a lot of private land in this country. Absolutely. But there is a lot of land that is owned by the federal government. So they're actually implicating a lot of this already. And it makes far more sense for an actor that has that kind of meso level understanding of what we need to build to be involved in those processes and be doing kind of a national assessment of where should those zones be. Like CREZ that's going to have all of these benefits and is going to allow for the most kind of efficient way for us to be deploying renewable energy while also taking into consideration these biodiversity, tribal nation relations and all of these things.That's a good role for the federal government to actually play.David RobertsOkay, we're going to pass quickly by two of these since I've done pods on them. But as you say, one is the interconnection process, which is probably the biggest thing right now, slowing down renewable energy getting built. I did a whole pod on that with RMI's Chaz Teplin a few weeks ago.Johanna BozuwaA fantastic one.David RobertsReally encourage everybody to go listen to that. There's a lot of recommendations in there for how to improve the interconnection process, how to improve things in batches. To return to a theme here, a lot of that has to do with just more and better planning on the ISO's parts.Once again, like, think in advance a little bit and you can skip some of this case by case stuff, but I encourage people to go listen to that pod. Another one, which we've touched on slightly, which I also did a pod on, is just and I think this is so important is just the capacity of the agencies that are doing these reviews. These are at the state level and at the federal level. These agencies have been cut to the bone. They're all, all understaffed, desperately behind, and that, of course, makes things go slower. So all these people who are whinging about reviews, if they're not talking about bulking up agency capacity, I just have trouble taking them seriously because that is the lowest hanging fruit you could do.But I did a whole pod on that several weeks ago about government capacity and about some of the provisions in the IRA that are meant to bulk up capacity at these agencies. It's just a matter of money and hiring. So we're going to check that one off the list. Let's talk a little bit about this next recommendation, which is about more publicly owned energy and transmission. What do you mean by that? What would that look like?Johanna BozuwaYeah, so this is kind of trying to answer the question of building where private companies will not, right? Like, we do have this problem of not having the long-range solution in the mind's eye, right? And we have this system in which there isn't a lot of this coordination that's in the mind's eye of a developer, right? Like, they're focused on their development, whereas the state government, federal government, has a little bit more of like, "Okay, what are we trying to accomplish? We are trying to handle the climate crisis. And that means we need to move as quickly as possible to deploy as much renewable energy as possible.And it turns out we actually do have some capacity and to actually build this ourselves." And we've done this in the past, admittedly, in a much less dense energy system. But the New Deal is a really good example of this, where the U.S. either directly financed or built itself a massive amount of transmission and energy infrastructure, like the Rural Electrification Administration that FDR put in place. It electrified 80% of the United States land mass in ten years. And when we're talking about the climate crisis, I would like to go at that clip. So I think if there are ways for us where we have a standstill where things aren't getting built fast enough, where can the federal government, the state government come in with a little political muscle and do that building?And I think that there are additional kind of benefits to doing this too, which include the fact that if you're building public renewables, for instance, you're also probably going to value having higher and better-paid jobs. You are probably going to, in comparison to a private developer, probably thinking a little bit more about some of those community benefits. And I think that there's a real win there that actually kind of creates a baseline for the rest of the private industry in a good way too.David RobertsInstead of just nudging and incentivizing private developers to do these things, we could just do them.Johanna BozuwaWe could just do them and we can also show them the way a little bit too. Right. Like right now, right. We just have the Inflation Reduction Act. Fabulous. We love the climate investments. It's so great. And also it just largely relies on tax incentives, right. And in those it's like you get a little bit more if you use local steel and if you have high wage jobs, all these things. And we could also just do that, build some public renewables and make it happen ourselves. And also when you have, particularly from a job perspective, right, like a public renewables entity that's building these developments with high wage work, that means that the private developers are afraid that they're going to lose all of their workers.So then they have to raise their wages too, which is a good thing.David RobertsRace to the top, I think they call that.Johanna BozuwaI would love a race to the top instead of a race to the bottom in our renewable energy world.David RobertsYes. Okay, we got to keep moving here. There's a long list. The next one is something we covered, I think, on the Thea Riofrancos post, which is just we know we have to build a lot of stuff, but that's not a fixed quantity of stuff we have to build. Right. We can be more efficient with how we use materials. We can try to build in a less material intensive way. So, you know, what Theo was talking about is encourage more walking and biking and multimodal transportation rather than cars, cars, cars. Like that's a choice. And there are other choices we could make to build a clean, but the less material intensive version of clean.There's a lot of different ways we can guide things in that direction.Johanna BozuwaOh yeah, absolutely.David RobertsEveryone should go listen to that podcast, too. This pod is like an advertisement for all my other pods.Johanna BozuwaI love it, I love it. Yeah. And just to kind of emphasize, the more that we can invest in efficiency, the fewer transmission lines we might have to build, right? Like if we have a bunch of houses that aggressively go in on multi units. Like, we're having more people housed in multi units. We're creating urban density. We're making the houses that we already have more efficient. All of those things accumulate and make it so that we actually don't have to do the same level of massive deployment, which is a huge win. So we have to — I think it's like questioning some of the assumptions, too, of how much do we need to build.David RobertsRight. Maybe not all our private vehicles need to be the size of military tanks and weigh three tons. This segues perfectly into the next one, which I feel like is underappreciated, which is supporting distributed energy resources. Talk about why that's part of going faster here. How does that fit into this picture?Johanna BozuwaSo let's say we're able to add rooftop solar to a lot of the rooftops that are around and implement microgrids and put in storage. These are all, again, things that are going to be a lot easier probably to deploy because they're smaller. There's less of this zoning permitting etc. that has to happen when it comes to some of the bigger stuff, where you're going to maybe need environmental review. And so by making those investments in distributed energy resources, you're actually lightening the load again on transmission development.David RobertsRight. It's kind of a piece of the previous one, really.Johanna BozuwaTotally.David RobertsIt's about being less material intensive.Johanna BozuwaExactly. And I also think the added benefit of doing that, of course, is the fact that we live in unreliable times and it adds additional reliability potential by having things like microgrids deployed.David RobertsYes, many future pods on that particular subject are in the works, are cooking in the Volts oven. Let's go to the second big category here, and this is where I have a little bit of skepticism. So this category is "Enhance community participation and consent." So this is what I want to talk about: You say, let's bring communities in more and earlier. And of course, I think most people, at least most people in my world, when they hear "more community involvement," their palms start sweating. They envision these local zoning meetings with old people shouting at city officials.They envision nothing ever getting done, everything getting blocked, NIMBY's everywhere. You have this sentence where it says, "Strengthening community participation early in the process will likely move projects forward faster without as much community opposition." Do we know that to be true? I want that to be true. I like the idea of it. Do we know that?Johanna BozuwaGreat question. It's worth interrogating. I'm going to borrow a little bit from my colleague that we've already referenced today, Thea Riofrancos, that she often says which is "Sometimes going fast isn't actually fast." So, you know, if we streamline, right, or NEPA gets streamlined or many of these other permitting processes, you cut the red tape and therefore you are steamrolling communities affected by the infrastructure. You're potentially hardening them against the project. And when they feel mad or disenfranchised, chances are they're going to throw the book at you. They're going to throw the book to stop the project. We talked about these arbitrary dates set by some of the permitting system.You're actually putting yourself up for far more potential litigation and drawn out legal battles because you actually haven't done the work that's necessary to bring that group on side, nor do you have all of your ducks in a row. So I think that there is a justification for defraying conflict and making our odds better at doing that. I'm not saying that we're not going to run into problems and there isn't going to be this annoying mob of Karens that's going to show up every once in a while. But I do think that our odds do look better when we do involve community.David RobertsThere's a cynical point of view here which says communities are always going to have their Karens. There's always going to be somebody who objects, no matter how early, no matter how much you consult, there's always going to be somebody who doesn't want something near them. The only way in the end to overcome this problem is to take those instruments of delay out of their hands, including the litigation tool, including the environmental review tool, including the community review tool, and just get a little bit more Chinese about the whole thing. Just go do stuff, even if — bulldoze, basically.I know we want to resist that conclusion, but I wish we knew better. I wish we had better models of moving quickly.Johanna BozuwaSo I think actually, since you mentioned the Chinese, I'm going to mention the Danish. And I think that part of this is actually like — we have this problem, right, that we know that deploying renewable energy, deploying clean energy is just incredibly important for the climate crisis. But the benefits are diffuse where the potential negative is pretty concentrated when it comes to these things. And so I think one question we can ask or the permit reviewers or whatever it is, or how we're thinking about developing these projects, is getting in their shoes and asking, what is in it for me?We can pay people to have some of this stuff, right? So the Danish government in the 1990s was building out a bunch of wind. And so one of the ways that they incentivized this wind development was by incentivizing that part of it is owned by the local government to give them a revenue stream. And that actually helped to limit the controversy. And you'll see that in Denmark, people have kind of higher concepts or like the polling is better for wind. And I was talking with this professor, Nick Pevzner from University of Pennsylvania, who was discussing this really interesting particular instance in which in one of these towns where they were going to be around the offshore wind, they actually brought in landscape architects to design the offshore wind. So that it would be aesthetically pleasing.David RobertsThe Danes give a shi-, give a dang, about how things look like. What a thought.Johanna BozuwaHuge difference.David RobertsYes, I know. You look at what's the one waste incineration plant in the middle of the town that's like gorgeous. It's got a laser display, I think it's got a ski hill on it. All these kind of things. It seems like we don't care here in the US. How ugly things are. Witness any sort of midsize town or strip mall or the periphery of any city. Everything's just like plain and ugly. Like what if we made things look nice that might improve community —Johanna BozuwaWe deserve nice things. Communities deserve nice things.David RobertsWe can have nice things. And you talk about we should do what's called a "Cumulative impact analysis."Johanna BozuwaYes.David RobertsAgain, to me on first blush that sounds like oh, bigger and more analysis: Surely that's going to slow things down. So how do you see that working?Johanna BozuwaWell, again, this kind of takes us to our planning. Right. Like cumulative impact analysis which New Jersey and New York have put in place is this way to discern not just the impact of the project but the accumulated impact of that project and what's already come to date. And I think what you would find in cumulative impact in these places, is that actually it's doing some of what we were talking about before, which is trying to fight off the bad and build more of the good. So that's a way to stop new fossil fuel infrastructure but maybe see benefit around solar or something like that.These are actually tools that, yes, as you say, at first glance you might think, "Oh my gosh, more? Really?" But what it's doing is assuring some of that larger meso level discerning and also in a lot of ways these are environmental justice tools too. Right. The reason that they're doing that is because it has so consistently been the same community that has had to shoulder the coal plant, then the gas plant, then the pipeline, then another cement factory. Right. And so they're trying to say, "Okay wait, this is out of control. Let's think about where we're putting this and how that's going to burden people."David RobertsSo the last category here is "Empower a just transition." And I don't think we need to go piece by piece through here since these are very familiar asks from progressive climate people, which is just stop permitting new fossil fuel facilities. Protect the communities that are getting hurt by fossil fuel pollution and set emission reduction targets that will phase out fossil fuels. I think those are all pretty straightforward. I do think the point here, though the larger point you're making with this section is worth underlining because it seems obvious to me, but also frequently left out of this debate, which is if you want to get renewable energy built faster: One way you could do that is through statute and regulation forcing fossil fuel out. Like, nothing's going to speed up renewable energy more than forcing fossil fuels out. Right. It seems so obvious, but it's weirdly left out here.Johanna BozuwaVery weirdly left out. It's a bizarre kind of development that we've seen in the climate realm, right? The IRA, for instance, that is a bill that is great. It creates a lot of carrots, but basically no sticks. And the reality is we need sticks if we're actually going to do this, right, as we were talking about at the kind of outset of the show, we can't let just the entire pie keep on getting bigger and bigger. We actually need to get rid of the fossil fuels. That's the point of what we're doing here. They're the reason that we have the climate crisis.And so, the best way to get rid of them is to just regulate them out of existence, like eliminate them. And I also think there's a certain amount of private industry hates regulation, but they do love certainty. So what is more certain than a decarbonization mandate that says, like, well, you need to be done by this date? And that actually gets us to more of the displacement than when we just say "Build, build, build just hopefully build the right thing for us, please please."David RobertsYes, I think that's true on several micro levels and it's true on a macro level too. One thing that would help us go faster is if we could just clearly articulate our goals. But we're sort of just hampered by having to beg Joe Manchin for his vote. And to get Joe Manchin's vote, you have to pretend that the whole pie is going to get bigger, that everything's going to grow. That's explicitly the grounds upon which he voted yes on Iraq. He sets it outright. He's like, I voted yes because I thought it was going to grow renewable energy and fossil fuels.In some sense, politically, we can't just come out and say the goal is to get rid of fossil fuels. That's where we're headed. It would just help everybody, private developers, state and local governments, if we were just on the same friggin page. Instead of sort of like backing into this, we're just backing into everything we do. Trying to sort of like wink wink at one another. Like we know what we're doing, they don't know what we're doing. It's just a bunch of confusion.Johanna BozuwaRight? And I think that it's also a little bit laughable because they obviously know what we're trying to do, right? Like, we're not really hiding the bag. And I think that this speaks to the need for us to be like, this is a 20-year fight, we're not done with the fight the progressive left needs to keep — we can't just have IRA and think that we're done and can wipe our hands. I mean, even this conversation that has come up on permitting shows that people are hungry and need more. And the question is okay, how do we build the actual political power so that Manchin isn't the one that's in the driver's seat?David RobertsYes.Johanna BozuwaI think one kind of last thing on this kind of community consent piece or community engagement that makes me really nervous to tie us back to the permitting realm, right. Is that the people who are potentially going to be railroaded by infrastructure that they don't want is rural America. And if you are pissing off rural parts of the United States right now, that's a very short-sighted game to be playing, right. Because you are potentially taking these rural folk who have just been beaten back again and again, and you're turning them to the right, to a growing fascist right, and giving away a massive voting bloc that is going to be crucial for us to continue to win and win again and keep winning until we actually solve the climate crisis.So I think when it comes to this kind of larger political project that we're doing on from a progressive perspective, we have to be wary of this idea that this is — not a get it fixed quick scheme.David RobertsYes. We do not want to tick off these particular communities any more than they're ticked off. I think if you talk to Biden administration officials sort of behind the scenes, they will tell you that part of the design of IRA, part of the thinking behind it is we need to flood these areas of the country that were hollowed out by neoliberalism, hollowed out by globalism. We need to flood them with new economic activity and new development or else our democracy is screwed. But it is also the case that you can't just go stomping things down here and there, willy-nilly, without community consent.They need to have a feeling that they're involved in where and how this is done.Johanna BozuwaYeah, we're trying to bring them into the fight for a populist amazing future, and shoving this down their throats I just don't think is the most effective tactic. And if you look back to the New Deal, right, so much of it was workers. It was people that were in more of rural America. There were so many of these folks who were standing up and fighting. And if we're not setting ourselves up for that same kind of sea change, then I'm afraid we're not going to be able to win this thing.David RobertsOkay. We are just about out of time. So just to kind of review, this is just, I think the point of your report, point of all this is to say the question of speed is not the same as the question of permitting. Technically speaking, permitting is a relatively small piece of the puzzle here. There's lots of other things we could be doing to speed things up that have nothing technically to do with NEPA or even technically to do with permitting. And we've reviewed a lot of them here, and I would commend people to your report to get a fuller picture of them and to think about them.But let me finish, I guess with, this is all a vision. I love this vision, but politics are politics and we live in a fallen world, et cetera, et cetera. So toward the end of last session, there was this chance to have a permitting deal, and basically it was these sort of arbitrary caps on NEPA reviews, the length of NEPA reviews and the Mountain Valley pipeline in exchange for some pretty substantial transmission stuff, some pretty substantial stuff on transmission, federal transmission planning. The progressive movement rallied to kill that. They called it Manchin's dirty deal. They rallied, they killed it.And what ended up happening was the NEPA stuff squeezed through somewhere else. The Mountain Valley pipeline squeezed through somewhere else, and the transmission stuff died. Looking back on that, do you think that was the right political move for the progressive movement to fight that bill? And more broadly, do you think the progressive movement is prepared to sort of make the political trade-offs which are going to be necessary since a lot of this stuff that you list in your report is just going to be very difficult with today's current political distribution of power?Johanna BozuwaYeah, great question, and I think my answer is that the progressive movement still did the right thing. We needed to fight — or the progressive movement folks who were in those fights needed to fight off and make very clear the MVP is not something that we can have — this permitting that's going to expand. It was a big toad to swallow. And I think if we look at some of the transmission stuff, like, sure, it was fine. Was it the things that we were fully looking for? I think it was Hickenlooper's bill, big wires that was in some of those kind of final fights, right.With the Fiscal Responsibility Act, his bill included something like a 30% interregional transfer. The DOE says we need a 120% increase in interregional transfer. That's just not even at the scale that we need, and we'd be giving up so much for it. So, yeah, we didn't fully win that fight, but I think that from what I'm hearing, kind of at the congressional level, there is the potential for another bite at the apple on transmission. There is still some, as we said earlier, right, everyone agrees that transmission is a boondoggle right now and a hot mess. So I think that should be one of the things that we're thinking about as the progressive movement.How do we do that? Right? But I don't think I would go back in time and say "Eh, we should just accept Manchin's deal." I think that it was an important political flag to stamp in the ground that, no, we actually don't believe that we should be expanding fossil fuels and renewable energy at the same time because that's not what we need to do. Saying all that, I do think there are things that we can be doing right now to advance transmission. For instance, FERC is looking at some of these interconnection issues right now. Biden should not rest on his laurels until he gets someone approved and appointed to the FERC board.David RobertsHey, there's Joe Manchin again being a jerk.Johanna BozuwaI know, it's so true. But there are things and again, we've already talked on this pod about stuff that can be done at the state level, too. We still have some cards to play in our hand to accelerate and prove our case increasingly and build the case for more federal implementation, too.David RobertsJohanna, thanks so much for coming on. I feel like lately the progressive environmental left has appeared in mainstream media and social media more as a weird caricature viewed from a distance than been able to speak for itself. So I'm glad to be able to have you on so we can talk through a little bit about how progressives see this and the larger issues at play and their specific recommendations, all of which I think are great. So people should check out your report. And thanks for sharing your time with us.Johanna BozuwaThank you so much for having me today, David. It's lovely.David RobertsThank you for listening to the Volts podcast. It is ad-free, powered entirely by listeners like you. If you value conversations like this, please consider becoming a paid Volts subscriber at volts.wtf. Yes, that's volts.wtf so that I can continue doing this work. Thank you so much, and I'll see you next time. Get full access to Volts at www.volts.wtf/subscribe

On June 3, President Biden signed into law H.R. 3746, the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (Public Law 118-5). The Act made significant changes to federal permitting for major infrastructure projects, including the first significant amendments to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in its history. In this webinar, experts aim to shed light on the implications of these changes for our nation's environmental policy framework.Our distinguished panelists will provide expert analysis and engage in a robust discussion on major issues raised by the new changes and their implications for permitting and NEPA review of major infrastructure projects.Discussion will focus on changes to NEPA and related permitting for major infrastructure projects, including:Empowering lead agencies"Reasonably foreseeable" limitation on environmental impacts that must be studiedGuidance on alternatives that must be consideredStatement of purpose and needTime limits and page limits for EISs and EAsProject proponent can prepare their own EISsNew definition of "major federal action"Mining, offshore leases, and other Department of Interior issuesJoin us for this engaging webinar to gain a comprehensive understanding of the significant changes to NEPA resulting from the debt ceiling compromise.Featuring: Emily Domenech, Senior Policy Advisor, Office of the SpeakerThomas Connally, Counsel, House Natural Resources CommitteeJason Hill, Counsel, Hunton Andrews KurthModerator: Mario Loyola, Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise InstituteVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

A quick little reading of the plot points, another bill that does more than just the headlines

On this episode of the Environmental Evolutions Podcast, Megan Berge is joined by Jeff Wood and Tom Jackson to explore the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023. They'll dive into the key provisions aimed at approving federal energy and infrastructure permitting procedures, as well as the NEPA reforms included in the new law.  The link to the law is below and if you have questions for Tom or Jeff, please contact them directly. The final version of Public Law No. 118-5: https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr3746/BILLS-118hr3746enr.pdf). 

It's official! Federal student loan payments are finally going to start again!Evon dives into the latest news optometrists need to know for federal student loans:Payments and interest are set to start this fallUpdates on loan cancellation and the new income-driven repayment planActions to take as payments restartAnd more!Have questions on anything discussed or want to have topics or questions featured on the show? Send Evon an email at evon@optometrywealth.com.Check out www.optometrywealth.com to get to know more about Evon, his financial planning firm Optometry Wealth Advisors, and how he helps optometrists nationwide. From there, you can schedule a short Intro call to share what's on your mind and learn how Evon helps ODs master their cash flow and debt, build their net worth, and plan purposefully around their money and their practices. Resources mentioned on this episode:Get your FREE Financial Assessment!Student Aid Website: COVID-19 Emergency Relief and Federal Student AidStudent Aid Website: COVID-19: Income Driven Repayment PlansBill text: The Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023Student Aid Website: Payment Count Adjustment Toward IDR and PSLF ProgramsOptometry Wealth Advisors: Our ServicesThe Optometry Money Podcast is dedicated to helping optometrists make better decisions around their money, careers, and practices. The show is hosted by Evon Mendrin, CFP®, CSLP®, owner of Optometry Wealth Advisors, a financial planning firm just for optometrists nationwide.

In this riveting episode of Practically Political, hosts Dave Spencer and Carrie Sheffield are joined by Rachel Snyderman, Director of Economic Policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center. They take a deep dive into the intricacies of the debt ceiling, the broken budget process, and the need for a reimagined annual appropriations process. Rachel provides her expert analysis on the Bipartisan Policy Center's projections and the resultant Fiscal Responsibility Act. They also discuss the impact of the presidential cycle on these programs and the urgency of modernizing them to ensure their solvency for future generations. The conversation takes a critical look at the state of Social Security, Medicare, and the changing labor market. Tune in for a comprehensive understanding of the current economic policy landscape and potential solutions for a more secure future.

Another unnecessary crisis averted. In this episode, Jen examines the debt ceiling crisis events of the past to show that the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 - which raised the debt ceiling - is not likely to reduce our government's debt but will likely ensure that our environment will be trashed for profit. She also examines the best path forward to ensure that the debt ceiling is never used for political leverage again. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via PayPal Support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536. Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! View the show notes on our website at https://congressionaldish.com/cd275-debt-ceiling-2023-crisis-normalized Background Sources Congressional Dish Episodes CD261: Inflation Reduction Act CD257: PACT Act – Health Care for Poisoned Veterans CD151: AHCA – The House Version (American Health Care Act) CD049: Crisis… Postponed CD048: The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) Debt Ceiling Overview “US debt ceiling - what it is and why there is one.” Natalie Sherman. Jun 2, 2023. BBC. “What Happens When the U.S. Hits Its Debt Ceiling?” Noah Berman. Last Updated May 25, 2023. Council on Foreign Relations. “A brief history of debt ceiling crises and the political chaos they've unleashed.” Raymond Scheppach. May 12, 2023. The Conversation. “Congress has revised the debt ceiling 78 times since 1960. An expert explains why.” Scott Simon and Lennon Sherburne. April 29, 2023. NPR. New Development Bank Ben Norton on Twitter New Development Bank on Twitter New Development Bank Website “BRICS New Development Bank de-dollarizing, adding Argentina, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe as members.” Ben Norton. Jun 8, 2023. Monthly Review Online. “NDB Board of Directors held its 40th meeting.” Jun 5, 2023. New Development Bank. Debt Limit History “The Debt Limit Through the Years.” Bipartisan Policy Center. “US government shutdown to end after Congress passes debt ceiling deal.” Paul Lewis and Dan Roberts. Oct 15, 2013. The Guardian. “S.& P. Downgrades Debt Rating of U.S. for the First Time.” Binyamin Appelbaum and Eric Dash. Aug 5, 2011. The New York Times. “Gingrich Vows No Retreat on Debt Ceiling Increase.” Clay Chandler. Sept 22, 1995. The Washington Post. 2023 Crisis “House Democrats Move to Force a Debt-Limit Increase as Default Date Looms.” Carl Hulse. May 2, 2023. The New York Times. “Can Congress Make an End-Run Around a Debt Limit Impasse? It's Tricky.” Carl Hulse and Jeanna Smialek. Apr 7, 2023. The New York Times. The Debt “2023 VAT Rates in Europe.” Cristina Enache. Jan 31, 2023. Tax Foundation. “National Debt: Definition, Impact, and Key Drivers.” Updated May 25, 2023. Investopedia. “Briefing Book: What is the Child Tax Credit?” Updated May 2021. Tax Policy Center. The Law H.R.3746: Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 Jen's Highlighted PDF CBO Estimate of Budgetary Effects Law Outline Division A: Limit Federal Spending Title I: Discretionary Spending Limits for Discretionary Category Sec. 101: Discretionary Spending Limits Sets spending caps for fiscal years 2024 and 2025 2024: Over $886 billion for defense Over $703 billion for non-defense Sec 102: Special Adjustments for Fiscal Years 2024 and 2025 If there is a continuing resolution in effect on or after January 1, 2024 for fiscal year 2024, or a continuing resolution for 2025 on or affect January 1, 2025, defense and non-defense spending will be sequestered, meaning a 1% across the board cut Title II: Budget Enforcement in the House of Representatives Explains how the House of Representatives must implement this law Title III: Budget Enforcement in the Senate Explains how the Senate must implement this law Division B: Save Taxpayer Dollars Title I: Rescission of Unobligated Funds Takes money back from accounts where it wasn't all spent including from: The Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Specifically their COVID vaccine activities and vaccine supply chains All the money except $7 billion for COVID testing and mitigation All of the SARS-CO-V2 genomic sequencing money except for $714 million All of the money for COVID global health programs International Disaster Assistance funds for the State Department National Institutes of Health - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Community health centers National Health Service Corps Nurse Corps Graduate level teaching health centers Mental health and substance use disorder training for health care professionals and public safety officers Grants for mental health for medical providers Funding for pediatric mental health care access Grants for survivors of sexual assault Child abuse prevention and treatment Medical visits at home for families State and local fiscal recovery funds Rural health care grants Restaurant revitalization fund Elementary and secondary school emergency relief funds Housing for people with disabilities Housing for the elderly Grants to Amtrak and airports Air carrier worker support and air transportation payroll support Title II: Family and Small Business Taxpayer Protection Sec. 251: Rescission of Certain Balances Made Available to the Internal Revenue Service Defunds the IRS by approximately $1.4 billion Title III: Statutory Administrative Pay-As-You-Go Requires agencies to submit plan to reduce spending in an equal or greater amount to every action they take that increases spending. This is easily waived and expires at the end of 2024.. Title IV: Termination of Suspension of Payments on Federal Student Loans: Resumption of Accrual of Interest and Collections Sec. 271: Termination of Suspension of Payments on Federal Student Loans; Resumption of Accrual of Interest and Collections At the end of September, people with Federal student loans will have to begin repayment of their loans, and the Secretary of Education is not allowed to implement an extension of the payment pause. Division C: Grow the Economy Title I: Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Orders reports about work requirements for welfare payments Title II: SNAP Exemptions Sec. 311: Modification of Work Requirement Exemptions In order to receive food benefits for more than 3 months in a 3 year period, "able bodied" people have to work at least 20 hours per week or participate in a work program for 20 hours per week unless that person is under 18 or over 50 years old, medically unable to work, is a parent with dependent children, or is pregnant. This provision increases the work requirement age over the next few years so it becomes 55 years old. This provision adds homeless individuals, veterans or foster kids until they are 24 to the list of people exempt from the work requirements This provision expires and the qualifications revert back to what they used to be on October 1, 2030 Title III: Permitting Reform Sec. 321: Builder Act Changes the requirements for NEPA environmental studies to include "any negative environmental impacts of not implementing the proposed agency action in the case of a no action alternative..." and requires only "irreversible and irretrievable commitments of FEDERAL resources which would be involved in the proposed agency action should it be implemented" Adds circumstances when agencies will not have to produce environmental impact documents Requires environmental impact statements when the action has a "reasonably foreseeable significant effect on the quality of the HUMAN environment." Allows agencies to use "any reliable data source" and says the agency is "not required to undertake new scientific or technical research unless the new scientific or technical research is essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives and the overall costs and time frame of obtaining it are not unreasonable." Assigns roles for "lead agencies" and "cooperating agencies" and says that the agencies will produce a single environmental document Sets a 150 page limit on environmental impact statements and 300 pages for a proposed agency action with "extraordinary complexity" Sets a 75 page limit on environmental assessments Requires lead agencies to allow a "project sponsor" to prepare environmental assessments and environmental impact statements under the supervision of the agency. The lead agency will "evaluate" the documents and "shall take responsibility for the contents." Environmental impact statements must be complete in under 2 years after the EIS is ordered by the agency Environmental assessments must be completed in 1 year The agency may extend the deadlines Project sponsors are given the right to take government agencies to court for failure to meet a deadline Sec. 324: Expediting Completion of the Mountain Valley Pipeline "Congress hereby ratifies and approves all authorizations, permits, verifications, extensions, biological opinions, incidental take statements, and any other approvals or orders issued pursuant to Federal law necessary for the construction and initial operation at full capacity of the Mountain Valley Pipeline." Gives the Secretary of the Army 21 days after enactment of this law to issue "all permits or verifications necessary to complete the construction of the Mountain Valley Pipeline across the waters of the United States" "No court shall have jurisdiction..." to review "...any approval necessary for the construction and initial operation at full capacity of the Mountain Valley Pipeline... including any lawsuit pending in a court as of the date of enactment of this section." Division D: Increase the Debt Limit Sec. 401: Temporary Extension of Public Debt Limit Suspends the debt limit until January 1, 2025 On January 2, 2025, the debt limit will automatically increase to whatever amount the debt level is at the end of the suspension Audio Sources Senate Session June 1, 2023 Highlighted Transcript Senate Session Parts 1 & 2 May 31, 2023 Highlighted Transcript Meeting: H.R. 3746 - Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 May 30, 2023 House Committee on Rules Watch it on YouTube Clips 22:50 Rep. Jason Smith (R-MO): I should note for my colleagues that Democrats could have raised the debt limit last year when they controlled the House of Representatives. 35:30 Rep. Ron Estes (R-KS): The Fiscal Responsibility Act finally ends the federal student loan moratorium and the so-called interest pause, effective August 31, 2023. For every month borrowers were allowed to skip payments, $4.3 billion were added to the American taxpayers debt. 41 months later, the moratorium has cost American taxpayers approximately $176 billion. 1:01:15 Rep. Joe Neguse (D-CO): The President put forward a budget months ago. Chairman Smith, do you know when the President submitted his budget to the United States Congress? Rep. Jason Smith (R-MO): I don't remember but it was -- Rep. Joe Neguse (D-CO): It was March 9th. Rep. Jason Smith (R-MO): It was late. It was due February 1st. Rep. Joe Neguse (D-CO): Oh, I'm glad you noted that. Chairman Smith, when did the Republicans submit their budget? Rep. Jason Smith (R-MO): You would need to ask the budget committee. Rep. Joe Neguse (D-CO): I would need to ask the budget committee. Mr. Estes. When did the Republicans submit their budget? [Pause] Only in the Rules Committee, by the way, could a witness lay blame at the president for being a few weeks late in submitting his budget when his party hasn't submitted a budget, period. 1:06:45 Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-PA): We also run the risk that we will one day not be the reserve currency of the world. The reason why our interest rates are so low comparatively, is because we are a safe haven for investment for the rest of the world. These sort of antics increasingly bring that into doubt whether or not folks will get their money, the folks who are lending to us. 1:24:15 Rep. Teresa Leger Fernandez (D-NM): Now, Standard and Poor's, they downgraded our credit rating. Have they increased that credit rating? Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-PA): No. There are three credit agencies Standard and Poor's, which was the one that downgraded us in 2011, never reversed their downgrade. And frankly my concern and the worry right now is that the other two credit agencies will now follow suit, given the events of the last couple of months, which obviously look very much like 2011 all over again. 1:50:55 Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA): I continue to be stunned by the fact that when I look at this deal, which focuses on discretionary funding, that the people who seem to be asked to do the most or to absorb the hits the most are the people that least can afford it. The military budget is part of this discretionary budget, it's over 50% of the discretionary budget. The United States spends more on national defense than China, Russia, India, Saudi Arabia, United Kingdom, Germany, France, South Korea, Japan and Ukraine combined. And yet, if this moves forward, we see an increase in defense spending. I mentioned in my opening remarks, I don't know how many of you saw the 60 minutes piece the other day, I mean, we all know, of the cost overruns in the Department of Defense. I mean, the idea that we're spending $10,000 for a $300 oil switch. I mean, it's been there for a long time, and yet, we seem unable to want to grapple with that waste and those cost overruns. I don't know if it's the defense lobbyists or the campaign contributions or whatever it is, but somehow, when it comes to the military budget, you know, not only are we not holding them accountable, but you know, we say we're going to increase it even more, even more, we'll give you more. 2:57:40 Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX): Look, I'm for NEPA reforms 100%. We need them for road projects, transportation, particularly for our energy industry. But my concern here that we've got language that none of us have fully reviewed, going through the committees of jurisdiction that has been adopted, that I've got colleagues texting me and saying they're not 100% sure if that language is good or bad for the purpose intended. I've got colleagues on both sides of the aisle that have raised those questions. And so the purpose intended, of course, is to streamline projects, whatever those projects may be. But I've got a text right here from GOP colleagues saying, Well, I'm not so sure that these will actually do what we think they will do, to streamline said projects. And in fact, a former high up in the administration, in the Energy Department under the Trump administration, just validated that concern by one of my colleagues. Yet we are putting forward this measures saying some grand improvement with respect to NEPA, that that's somehow something we should be applauding when it's not the full package of H.R. 1, which had gone through committee. And importantly, the one thing that I think is 100% clear, is that this bill fails to include even the most basic reform to President Biden's unreliable energy subsidies that were put forward in the so called inflation Reduction Act for the wealthy, elites, corporations, and the Chinese Communist Party just to be blunt. And frankly, it ensures that permitting reform will likely benefit renewables the most. Basically, if you're a government that is subsidizing the crap out of something, in this case, unreliable energy, giving massive subsidies to billion dollar corporations, giving significant subsidies to families that make over 100,000, 300,000 for EVs, because you're chasing your your dreams of, you know, a fossil fuel-less world. You're going to absolutely decimate our grid because you're not going to have the projects being developed for the gas and the coal nuclear that are actually required to keep your grid functioning. But yeah, that's what we're doing and I just for the life of me can't understand why we're applauding that. 3:15:50 Rep. Jason Smith (R-MO): So we've been asking for the IRS to give us a plan of how they wanted to spend the additional $80 billion that they had. They finally gave that to Congress about six weeks, eight weeks ago. They broke down how they're spending the $80 billion: $1.4 billion of it was for hiring more agents and what the bill before you does, it eliminates that $1.4 billion for this year. House Session May 25, 2023 Highlighted Transcript House Session, Morning Hour, Parts 1 & 2 May 24, 2023 Highlighted PDF How the Pentagon falls victim to price gouging by military contractors May 21, 2023 60 Minutes The Rich Get Richer, Deficits Get Bigger: How Tax Cuts for the Wealthy and Corporations Drive the National Debt May 17, 2023  Senate Budget Committee Witnesses: Bobby Kogan, Senior Director, Federal Budget Policy, Center for American Progress Bruce Bartlett, Former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy, United States Department of Treasury Samantha Jacoby, Senior Tax Legal Analyst, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities Dr. Adam Michel, Director of Tax Policy Studies, Cato Institute Scott Hodge, President Emeritus & Senior Policy Advisor, Tax Foundation Clips 32:25 Bobby Kogan: Today I intend to make two points. First, without the Bush tax cuts, their bipartisan extensions, and the Trump tax cuts, the ratio of debt to GDP would be declining indefinitely. And second, our rising debt ratio is due entirely to these tax cuts and not to spending increases. Throughout this testimony, When I say spending, I mean primary spending, that is spending excluding interest on the federal debt, and every mention of revenues, spending deficits, and debt means those amounts as a percent of GDP. Okay, according to CBO primary deficits are on track to stabilize at roughly 4% over 30 years, high enough to cause the debt to rise indefinitely. The common refrain that you will hear, that I heard when I staffed this committee, and that unfortunately, I expect to hear today, is that rising debt is due to rising spending. Revenues have been roughly flat since the 1960s and while spending was also roughly flat until recently, demographic changes and rising healthcare costs are now pushing the costs up. These facts are true. Our intuitions might reasonably tell us that if revenues are flat, and spending is rising, then the one changing must be to blame. But our intuitions are wrong. In CBO's periodic long term projections earlier this century, spending was projected to continue rising, but despite this CBO routinely projected long term debt stability, It projected revenues to keep up with this rising spending, not due to tax increases, but due to our tax code bringing in more as our country and the people in it prospered. That prosperity results in both higher revenue collection and higher real after tax income for the people whose incomes are growing, it is a win win. In other words, we used to have a tax system that would fully keep pace with rising spending. And then the Bush tax cuts were enacted and expanded, and then on a bipartisan basis eventually made largely permanent in 2013. Under the law dictating CBO and OMB's baseline construction, temporary changes in tax law are assumed to end as scheduled. In practice this meant that CBO is projection showed the Bush tax cuts ending on schedule with the tax code then reverting to prior law. 2012 was therefore the last year in which CBO is projections reflected the Bush tax cuts expiring. Yes, CBO's 2012 long term projections showed rising spending, but it also showed revenues exceeding spending for all 65 years of its extended baseline with indefinite surpluses, CBO showed debt declining indefinitely. But ever since the Bush tax cuts were made permanent CBO has showed revenues lower than spending and has projected debt to rise indefinitely. And since then, the Trump tax cuts further reduced revenues. Without the Bush tax cuts, their bipartisan extensions, and the Trump tax cuts, debt would be declining indefinitely, regardless of your assumptions about the alternative minimum tax. Two points explain this. The first employs a concept called the fiscal gap, which measures how much primary deficit reduction is required to stabilize the debt. The 30 year fiscal gap is currently 2.4% of GDP, which means that on average primary deficits over 30 years would need to be 2.4% of GDP lower for the debt in 2053 to be equal to what it is now. The size of the Bush tax cuts their extensions and the Trump tax cuts under current law over the next 30 years is 3.8% of GDP. Therefore, mathematically and unequivocally without these tax cuts, debt would be declining as a percent of GDP, not rising. 41:45 Bruce Bartlett: The reason I changed my mind about taxes and decided that we needed tax increases happened on a specific day that I'm sure Senator Grassley remembers, if nobody else. And that was the day in November of 2003, when the Medicare Part D legislation passed, and I was just, you know, at the time, I thought the reason Republicans, and I was a Republican in those days, were put on this earth was to control entitlement programs. And I was appalled that an entirely new entitlement program was created that was completely unfunded. It raised the deficit forever by about 1% of GDP. And I thought a dedicated tax should have been enacted, along with that program, which I didn't oppose and don't oppose. In fact, I benefit from it at my age. But I just think that we need proper funding. And that was when I first started saying we needed to raise taxes, because we just can't cut discretionary spending enough to fix the problem. And I think this is the error of the House budget, which cuts almost entirely domestic discretionary spending, doesn't even touch defense, and I just think that's extraordinarily unrealistic and an unserious approach to our deficit problem. We simply have to do something about entitlements. If you're going to control spending, control the budget on the spending side, I don't think we're going to do that. I think we need a new tax. I have advocated a value added tax for many years, as a supplement to our existing tax system. It creates, you can raise a lot of revenue from it every virtually every industrialized country has one. The money could be used to fix things in the tax code, as a tax reform measure. Once upon a time in the 70s, and even the 80s, it was considered the sine qua non of Republican tax policy, because it's a consumption based tax system, a flat tax, and now many Republicans are in favor of something called the Fair Tax which is very similar except that it won't work. Administratively it's poorly designed. The Value Added Tax will work and that's why it should be a better approach to these problems. 49:15 Samantha Jacoby: Wealthy people who get their income from investments accumulate large gains as those assets go up in value over time, but they won't owe income tax unless they sell their assets. And if they never sell, no one will ever pay income tax on those gains. That's arguably the biggest flaw in the tax code. Policymakers should consider a tax like President Biden's budget proposal to enact a minimum tax on very wealthy households. This would treat unrealized capital gains, which is the primary source of income for many wealthy households, as taxable income instead of letting income accrue tax free across generations. 54:15 Dr. Adam Michel: Keeping government small is the best way to ensure that the American people can continue to prosper. 58:45 Scott Hodge: There are many elements of the tax code that benefit the wealthy and big corporations, I absolutely agree, and the inflation Reduction Act is the most recent example of corporate welfare in the tax code. 1:01:00 Samantha Jacoby: So the the 2017 law, it dramatically changed the way that foreign profits are taxed of multinationals. And so what happens now is large corporations who have big, big foreign profit centers, lots of foreign profits overseas, they pay a lower tax rate on those foreign profits than they do on their domestic profits or purely domestic businesses pay. 1:02:55 Bruce Bartlett: And one of the things I tried to do in my prepared testimony is look at what has actually happened in the seven years since then. And very few studies, I know, some of the tests, the footnotes and my colleagues testimony or to our projections based on studies were done in 2017, 2018. I tried to find things that were written more recently, perhaps, or preferably, I should say, in the academic literature, which I think is more substantive and more dependable. And I looked at peer reviewed journals, and the data that I could find showed no macroeconomic impact whatsoever. It didn't raise growth, it didn't lower growth. And I think I concluded in that -- Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI): It did shift wealth, correct? Bruce Bartlett: Excuse me? Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI): It did shift wealth. Bruce Bartlett: Oh, absolutely. No question about that. But I'm more interested in the macroeconomic effect on investment and growth and employment. And I would just close by saying that if a tax cut had no positive impact, then it can't have any negative impact if you get rid of it. Now, you may not want to for other reasons.... 1:05:25 Bobby Kogan: Right. So our demographic changes and rising healthcare costs are the reason that spending is increasing. If you break spending into two categories, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, everything else, including the everything else entitlements, the everything else is shrinking as a percent of GDP and it's the Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security that are growing. And they are growing not because they are getting more, they're doing more, it's not because we're giving more and more to seniors, and to extremely poor people, but because it costs more to do the same. And that is the rising that is the demographics is changing the ratio of non workers to workers and there's also the rising health care costs. And so what this means is that if you want to spend less, you are necessarily saying that future seniors should be getting less of a benefit than they're currently getting. That's the only way to do it. Since that's the portion of the budget that's growing, if you want to cut that, you have to say that the current amount that we're doing for Social Security recipients, the current amount that we're doing for seniors, the current amount that we're doing for people on Medicaid is too much, and future people should be having less. That's the only way to do it. And, you know, the very nice thing that I had though, ii my testimony, we used to have a tax system that despite that rising, we keep up with that, and now we don't. 1:15:50 Bruce Bartlett: Well, first of all, I think in terms of tax shelters and tax evasion and extreme levels of tax avoidance, the problem isn't so much with the law as with the enforcement. And as you know, it's been the policy of Republicans to slash the budget of the IRS in real terms, for many years, which is a way of giving, privatizing tax avoidance to rich people and the rich individuals have the greatest power and ability to evade taxation. And I think it was really wonderful that the Congress increased the IRS budget, and I think it's just the height of absurdity that one of the major elements of the House Republican proposal is to slash the IRS budget again, even though the CBO has said this is a revenue losing proposition. 2:06:40 Bruce Bartlett: I think there's absolutely no question that the debt limit is unconstitutional, and not just under the 14th Amendment, section four, but under the general powers of the President. I mean, one of the things that I will point out is that the debt limit is a very serious national security issue. A huge percentage of the national debt that is owned by foreigners is owned by foreign central banks. They are not going to be happy if their assets are suddenly worth a great deal less than they thought they were. I think the President has full power within his inherent authority to simply declare the debt limit null and void. And I would point out that it's not a simple question of whether you just break the debt limit. I think a lot of people, even on this committee, forget the impoundment part of the Budget Act of 1974, which says the President must spend the money that is appropriated by law, he doesn't have the choice not to, which is what some Republicans seem to think that he can do. And he lacks that power. So I would agree that the President has that power. I wish he would use it. I wish it as sincerely as anything I believe in life. Thank you. Senate Session May 16, 2023 Highlighted PDF House Session May 16, 2023 Highlighted PDF Senate Session May 15, 2023 Highlighted PDF House Session May 10, 2023 Highlighted PDF Senate Session, Parts 1 & 2 May 19, 2023 Highlighted PDF Senate Session May 9, 2023 Highlighted PDF Senate Session May 4, 2023 Highlighted PDF Senate Session, Parts 1 & 2 May 2, 2023 Highlighted PDF Music Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio) Editing Pro Podcast Solutions Production Assistance Clare Kuntz Balcer

“A More Perfect Union" Hour 1 with Nii-Quartelai Quartey | @drniiquartelai| Podcast Hosted by changemaker, journalist, educator, and KBLA Talk 1580 Chief National Political Analyst Dr. Nii-Quartelai Quartey, “A More Perfect Union” promises to deliver national news of consequence, informed opinion, and analysis beyond the headlines. The USA averts an economic catastrophe after President Biden signs the Fiscal Responsibility Act, lifting the debt ceiling. While this may be a rare demonstration of bipartisanship, SNAP beneficiaries and student loan borrowers didn't come out of the negotiations unscathed. We'll talk about this and some of the week's biggest national headlines with Fox News & Forbes Contributor Richard Fowler.

This week on Breaking Battlegrounds, we are joined by friend of the show, Congressman Dusty Johnson of South Dakota. Later in the program, we speak with Dr. James Bosbotinis, a UK-based specialist in defense and international affairs.-Dusty Johnson brings an energetic and optimistic style to Washington as South Dakota's lone voice in the U.S. House of Representatives. A recognized leader in issues related to rural America, agriculture, and welfare reform, he serves on the Agriculture Committee and as Chairman of the Commodity Markets, Digital Assets, and Rural Development Subcommittee. As a member of the Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, Dusty has been focused on finding solutions to the supply chain crisis through his Ocean Shipping Reform Act which passed the House in 2021. Appointed to the Select Committee on China, Dusty addresses the 360-degree threat posed by China, especially their ownership of American ag land and ag businesses and control over tech. Prior to being elected to Congress, he served as chief of staff to the Governor and as vice president of an engineering firm specializing in rural telecommunications. Dusty lives in Mitchell with his wife and three sons.-Dr James Bosbotinis is a specialist in defence and international affairs. He has particular expertise in the study of contemporary maritime strategy, assessing naval and air force developments, geopolitical analysis, and generating understanding of the connections between maritime strategy and national policy. Dr Bosbotinis has extensive experience encompassing academic and policy-relevant research and analysis for a range of customers, including UK government bodies. He has written widely on issues including the development of British maritime strategy, maritime airpower, Russian maritime doctrine, naval and wider military (including nuclear) modernisation, long-range strike technologies (including hypersonic weapons) and their impact on strategy, and China's evolving strategy. He is the Book Reviews Editor of The Naval Review, and an Associate Member of the Corbett Centre for Maritime Policy Studies, King's College London.”-Connect with us:www.breakingbattlegrounds.voteTwitter: www.twitter.com/Breaking_BattleFacebook: www.facebook.com/breakingbattlegroundsInstagram: www.instagram.com/breakingbattlegroundsLinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/breakingbattlegrounds- TranscriptionSam Stone: [00:00:11] Welcome to Breaking battlegrounds with your host, Chuck Warren. I'm Sam Stone. Folks, up first as our guest today, a returning guest and friend of the program. Welcome to Congressman Dusty Johnson, the lone representative from South Dakota. He serves on the as chairman of the Commodity Markets Digital Assets and Agriculture Committee. Or sorry, I am all over the place reading this today. He serves on the Agriculture Committee and as chairman of the Commodity Markets, Digital Assets and Rural Development Subcommittee and as a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. He's also been doing a lot of work as part of the Select Committee on China. Dusty, thank you so much for joining us and welcome to the program.Congressmen Dusty Johnson: [00:00:53] Well, thanks for having me again. I'm glad I didn't flunk the first appearance.Chuck Warren: [00:00:57] We are, too. I've been horrible for ratings. All right. So China has made a secret agreement with Cuba, which is about 100 miles south of Florida. For those of you who bet on geography that they're going to do electronic eavesdropping facility in Cuba, is this alarming or should it be?Congressmen Dusty Johnson: [00:01:16] It is alarming. It's alarming for two reasons. Number one, I mean, they're going to have the capability to do all kinds of electronic surveillance across the southeastern United States from there. That's going to give them access to stuff that they don't otherwise have. They can't get this same stuff from space. They could get it from balloons. But obviously, balloons are pretty easy to to bring down. So this is going to give them new capabilities, particularly to scoop up information communications from military sites in the southeastern United States. But the second reason it's concerning is that it shows additional provocation by Xi Jinping. They just keep pushing the envelope. They keep pushing us. They want us to know that they're going to be the bosses of the next 100 years. And it's a problem. I mean, we have a rules based international system was largely erected by the United States after World War II and our allies. And China hates it. They just hate it. They don't think those rules of fair play make any sense. They want to knock down that system and build a new international system with their values at the core of it. And all of these provocations are just part of a longer term strategy. And I would just say this by way of closure. They have a strategy. I'm not sure our country does. I think we just we don't have a thoughtful and deliberate plan on how to make sure that the next century continues to be part of, you know, an American century.Chuck Warren: [00:02:46] Speaking of that, so now we're talking about Cuba. Is the United States with really no strategy neglecting Central and South America, which China seems to be focusing on?Congressmen Dusty Johnson: [00:02:58] Yes. Yeah, we. So many Americans. I mean, we're in a little bit of an isolationist time. People want to, you know, America first. And listen, of course, when we make policies, we should look first to how is it going to impact America, How is it going to strengthen American prosperity and security? But America first can't mean America. Only some people will sometimes say, well, why would we care about Guyana? Why would we care about, you know, Qatar? Why would we care about Ukraine? But when we recede from international leadership and create a vacuum, China is all too willing to step up and fill that void. They love it. They love it when Americans put our head in the sand. They what I would call the Southern globe. They really are trying to be the dominant force there. China is the largest trading partner with every single South American country. That's it used to be America, and now it's China. In public opinion surveys, increasingly, citizens of African nations are saying that it is China that is the leader of the world and not the United States.Sam Stone: [00:04:03] Well, and that is a matter of world opinion, not U.S. Opinion, too. I think we have to take that into consideration. You can't be the leader of the world just because the people in your country say so.Congressmen Dusty Johnson: [00:04:14] Right. Yeah, that's a really good point. And I just think a world where people think China is in charge is a more dangerous world for freedom. And the thing that I've loved about America through the last 247 years is that to a greater degree than any other country in the history of the world, we have been on the side of the right guys, of the good guys, and we've fought for values. And, you know, we haven't been perfect, but we've gotten it right way more often than anybody else has. And that is not China's track record.Chuck Warren: [00:04:46] Well, and it's interesting. China has sort of become the world's loan shark. It's loaning money to these third world countries for ports, infrastructure. When they can't pay it back.Sam Stone: [00:04:57] They kneecap.Chuck Warren: [00:04:57] Them. They kneecap them. Exactly. And trademarked that term. And so we do that. And so that brings me to we talked about I feel the United States for decades has ignored Central and South America. Right? I mean, we have every abundant resource in the world in our hemisphere. We seem to ignore it. And now you have The Washington Post came out this morning with the Saudi crown prince privately threatened a major economic pain on the US amid a showdown over oil cuts. Leaked intelligence show. And now you have Saudi Arabia inviting China over. We just dropped the ball here. I mean, I don't I don't think I have felt this insecure about our ability in the world right now since I have the late 70s.Congressmen Dusty Johnson: [00:05:44] And I would tell you, this sort of sense of populism that's growing on both sides of the aisle is contributing to that. Free trade is out of vogue. It used to be that that was a key Republican value, that a willing buyer, a willing seller, that kind of free trade without undue government intervention that made both sides more prosperous. Again, it's voluntary. I mean, they're only going to enter into it if they if it makes their individual lives or country stronger. Correct? At least in theory. I mean, Colombia is the fifth largest market for American corn. Is that because Colombia's a top five nation in population or wealth? No, is because Colombians have some unique tastes for corn. No, it's because we have a free trade agreement with Colombia. And so the invisible hand just kind of wants this American product to flow toward that country. And this administration, the Biden administration has no trade policy, Zero. There have been no there's been no progress on any trade deal in the last two and a half years. And the world when I have people come to my office from other countries, they they want to do business with America. They want to buy our beef, our dairy, our corn. They want to buy our manufactured goods. And we are not making it very easy for them. And you're right, that kind of stepping back of American leadership is absolutely. Injuring American competitiveness.Sam Stone: [00:07:14] Well, they want to buy our products because our products are well made. They're safer than food coming from China. Know all of those things. We have this really good capitalist system, but at the head of it is a government that has no idea what it's doing and keeps making radical course changes between administrations. That has to be throwing out all of our allies for a loop.Congressmen Dusty Johnson: [00:07:37] That it is they they still realize that, you know, when we lead, we're the best leader in the world. There's nobody else can bring to the table what America does. They get a little nervous when they feel like America is too inward focused. Tony Blair, former prime minister of the United Kingdom, told me a few months ago that America's political division is a global security threat, that when our Republicans and our Democrats are bickering, the rest of the world gets concerned. And when we're getting along, when America is united, the whole world just breathes a sigh of relief. Oh, thank goodness. Mom and dad, they're the cops on the beat. There's going to be more security. There's going to be more free trade. There's going to be more prosperity across the globe. When we drop the ball, everybody feels it.Sam Stone: [00:08:30] How much is what China is doing right now is really reminiscent of an economic version, if you will, of the Empire Building of the 18th and 19th and early 20th century. How did they how do Chinese people view what they're trying to do in their territorial ambitions? Have you gotten any information on that from your briefings? I mean, do they have real popular support in their country for this sort of muscular foreign diplomacy?Congressmen Dusty Johnson: [00:09:00] We heard from two survivors of the Tiananmen Square massacre. Last week, it was the anniversary of the massacre. And what was most interesting to me about that briefing wasn't just replaying the terrible events of that day, but about how little awareness there is among the Chinese people about the actions of their government. The Great Chinese Firewall is for real. It is very difficult for everyday Chinese people to gain understanding of what their government is doing. And this is the most sophisticated surveillance state that has ever been constructed with human knowledge. And I don't I think Americans don't understand how bad it is. I mean, there are regions in China where you can only get toilet paper in a public restroom by scanning your ID. They want to know where you are. They want to know what you're doing. They want to know how much toilet paper you're using. This is an almost breathtakingly deep invasion of people's privacy, so people are not comfortable speaking out there. There is not a free media. And I not only do they not understand what their government is doing today, there is almost no historical memory of the fact that this has been a repressive and oppressive regime for decades. It is a major problem. The Chinese people are not are not an adversary to our nation. It is just Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party.Sam Stone: [00:10:35] Well, and that brings up a good point. You talk about the digital wall that they've created. I mean, one of the ways that we've really advanced towards ending the Cold War and ending the antagonism with the Soviet Union was with Voice of America, with other communications, where they started seeing on TV the lies their government was telling. Because their government says everyone in America, its poor, it's racked by race riots. All the time. It's a terrible place to live. And then I talked to one ex-Soviet who said, hey, they showed us that. But then they're saying these are the ghettos and everyone has cars and none of us had cars. How do we break through the digital wall? I mean, is there a way for us to start trying to to direct more information to these folks?Congressmen Dusty Johnson: [00:11:25] Yes. And I think things like low earth, low orbit satellites can can play a role in giving people access to Internet that doesn't go through the great Chinese firewall. It can help, you know, one, 1.5 billion Chinese people understand that their regime is evil and is working to make them subservient every single day. But that requires an investment like putting satellites up in space and giving people access to, you know, the World Wide Web. This is not something that happens for free. And I think in our political system right now, if somebody said, well, we want, you know, X hundreds of millions or, you know, a few billion dollars to be able to deploy these satellites like the Voice of America to cut through these tyrannical regimes. What do you all think? I mean, I think a lot of Americans would say, well, why do I care what's going on in Hong Kong? Why do I care what's going on? I mean, I just it seems like it doesn't affect my life.Chuck Warren: [00:12:24] And well.Congressmen Dusty Johnson: [00:12:25] The so I think we've got some information sharing we got to do. Well.Chuck Warren: [00:12:28] We're almost out of time here for this first segment. But I think my final comment here real quick is there's just so much going on in the world. You're saying, how much can I handle mentally? I think that's a big part of it. Now, we're with Congressman Dusty Johnson, South Dakota. This is breaking battlegrounds. Find us at breaking battlegrounds, dot vote or your favorite podcast. We'll be right back. Welcome back to Breaking Battlegrounds. I'm your host, Chuck Warren and Sam Stone. We are honored to have friend of the show, Congressman Dusty Johnson, Republican from South Dakota, a true leader in Congress. And folks, are you concerned about your retirement? You probably should be. Things aren't getting cheaper. Social Security going to have to be altered some, whether you like it or not, in the future. That's why Sam and I are recommending to you Yrefy? They are a great opportunity to help students pull out of their private loan college debts, and you can get up to a 10.25% return. That's right, 10.25%. So learn more about how to make your investment dollar go further better than the stock market, actually. And that's why we suggest you call Why Yrefy at eight, eight, eight. W Yrefy two four? Again, call eight, eight, eight Yrefy two four and tell him Chuck and Sam sent you.Sam Stone: [00:14:00] Congressman, thank you for sticking with us, folks. He's going to be on for one more segment after this. Also. So, Congressman, we very much thank you for your time this morning. But one thing we wanted to touch on before we move on to other topics is we've been talking about China. You're part of the China Select Committee. We had Congressman Dunn on the program a couple of weeks ago, and he told us something that I actually was not aware of and hadn't heard that all those little South Pacific islands that MacArthur used as essentially the latter to Japan and that we would, quite frankly, need in a war between Taiwan and China to be able to effectively operate in that theater. The Chinese, just like you were talking about in South America, they're making both economic and military overtures and essentially weaponizing that ladder against us. Can you tell us any more about that or is what are they doing? Because it seems very clear that they are gearing up for an attack on Taiwan.Congressmen Dusty Johnson: [00:15:01] Everything you said is absolutely spot on. And we talked about in the first segment about American leadership receding a fair amount across the broader world. There are diplomats who say, oh, you know, from from these smaller countries who say, when I talk to the Chinese, I get an airport. When I talk to the Americans, I get a scolding.Congressmen Dusty Johnson: [00:15:22] And.Sam Stone: [00:15:24] I'll take the airport. Thanks.Congressmen Dusty Johnson: [00:15:27] Yeah. And that's what they're saying now. They know that the airport is going to be built in a very shoddy manner. They know that there's this loan shark mentality that you described, but these are poor countries. And there are times when they've got their backs up against the wall where they don't really know what else to do. They also don't get the sense that this is I mean I mean, Americans have a tendency to view things in pretty stark terms in kind of black and white. I think, by the way, that's when we look at the Chinese Communist Party. We are right to look at them as the bad guys. I think it is that simple. I think Xi Jinping is every bit as big a villain and a tyrant as the famous tyrants of the 20th century we all learned about in third grade. And so I do think that that we are right to look at it in those terms. The rest of the world, you know, these poor countries, they're not so sure. They're trying to make sure their people are fed. And so when these overtures that you're talking about are made, they are far more open to them because America is a little missing in action. Now, I think we have an opportunity here to step up our game because they don't want to cut these deals with the Chinese, but we have to give them an alternative. One more thing in there have been some recent years where where China's Belt and Road initiative invested more money in the developing world than the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund combined. And so it's not just America that's getting outspent by the Chinese. It's really the entire free developed world. We just were getting lapped.Chuck Warren: [00:17:00] Do you think the American public, especially those under the age of 40, really understand what communism is?Congressmen Dusty Johnson: [00:17:05] No, and in part because both political parties are free to use those terms whenever they think that it will provide a short term political benefit. So we really don't I mean, there's not a deep understanding of different political philosophies. No, it is with some communities. It's very clear. I mean, Carlos Gimenez from Florida is on the Select Committee on China with Neal Dunn and myself. And he having spent some time early on in his life in Cuba, I think does understand the backbreaking poverty that can be caused by communism, by socialism. So it's not I mean, it is not unusual among Cuban Americans or among people who emigrated from Eastern Europe for them to understand those concepts. But native born Americans, we just don't get it.Chuck Warren: [00:17:56] I want to switch subjects real quick here. Let's talk about Isgs for a moment. So there's a report out today by the Texas Public Policy Foundation that says under Biden, oil and gas investment is down 80%, 80%. So we just talked earlier about Saudi Arabia threatening economic sabotage on the American economy because Biden doesn't know what he's doing. And now you have these folks that are afraid to put capital on new oil and gas wells, refineries, pipelines, etcetera. We have a problem here because we can be you know, look, there's two things. America should always be self-sufficient on food and energy. There's no reason for it. How do we turn this around?Congressmen Dusty Johnson: [00:18:38] And that is really well said. I do think food and energy are they are the very base of the pyramid. It's hard to build anything upwards if you don't have those as the foundation. And we know that it's almost impossible to cite big projects, whether they be energy or infrastructure in this country. The same project that you can get done in two years in France or Germany takes you five years to get done in this country. I mean, France is not generally considered a paragon of regulatory efficiency. So when we are getting our butts kicked by France, I think that is a should be a major wakeup call. And this is bipartisan, by the way. We've had Secretary Buttigieg come to our transportation committee and talk about how we need to streamline permitting. We have clearly, Senator Manchin has tried to be a leader on this issue. We have really made no meaningful progress until last week. Where the debt ceiling deal, the Fiscal Responsibility Act, which I think was pretty unfairly maligned by, you know, far right conservatives for the first time since the 1970s made major improvements in how we can streamline these things. It gives a shot clock for environmental review on energy projects and other projects. So you can't take five years to complete an environmental impact statement. It makes sure that there's a federal government, one agency who's the coordinator who's trying to drive these decisions to fruition. I mean, it does a lot of things that we've been talking about for a long time, but we need even more of it because I think affordable energy is a is an American competitive advantage and we are squandering it.Sam Stone: [00:20:21] Yeah, that's also very well said. It's a huge advantage. We have just about a minute here before we go back to break. We're going to be coming back for our third segment with more from Congressman Dusty Johnson of South Dakota. Congressman, how do folks follow you and your work? Stay in touch with both what you're doing at the Capitol and while you're at home there in South Dakota?Congressmen Dusty Johnson: [00:20:41] Well, at Rep Dusty Johnson, so Rep, Dusty Johnson kind of on all of the social media platforms, not TikTok, because that's just Chinese malware, but basically everywhere else, that's where we're at. And we'd love to have people join the conversation.Sam Stone: [00:20:56] I did a thing not too long ago for a group of folks asking about different social medias. I went through the purpose of each one of them. I got to Tik Tok and I said, If you have this, throw away your phone.Congressmen Dusty Johnson: [00:21:06] Yep, yep. It's true.Sam Stone: [00:21:09] Congressman, thank you so much. We're going to be coming back here with more from Congressman Dusty Johnson on breaking battlegrounds in just a few moments. We want to touch a little bit on something else that's going on that the congressman has been working on, particularly relating to food security here in the United States and to our our food systems. That has been a major focus of his. And thank goodness we do have some folks in there focusing on it. Folks, make sure you download and tune in to our podcast only segment. You can get that wherever you get your podcasts. We are doing quite a bit on that these days. Those segments keep getting longer and longer and Chuck and I have a nice argument for you at the end of this one. So folks, breaking battlegrounds. Back in just a moment. Welcome back to Breaking battlegrounds with your host, Chuck Warren. I'm Sam Stone. On the line with us right now, Congressman Dusty Johnson of South Dakota. Congressman, one of the things that you've been working on really since the pandemic has been our food supply security, its supply chain crisis overall. You've been working on the Ocean Shipping Reform Act. Tell us what's going on in both of those areas, because I think Americans still don't realize how fragile our supply chain has been ever since 2020 and continues to be right now.Congressmen Dusty Johnson: [00:22:37] There are a lot of factors that make that supply chain pretty fragile. I mean, we're 80,000 truck drivers short. We only have five major ocean carriers. And so if 1 or 2 of them decide that they're not interested in fairly hauling American products to market, we've got a problem. We had done somewhat of an underinvestment in infrastructure over the previous 20 years. I think that's beginning to move back in the right direction. So we do listen. We have some work to do. And just to give you an example, during the kind of the 18 months after the worst of the pandemic, so we've moved past the worst of health issues, but we were still dealing with some economic fragility. 60% of containers that were going back to Asia were going back empty. This at a time when we had American food products literally rotting on the on the on the docks there because the foreign flagged ocean carriers just wanted to make a quick turn. They didn't want to haul American goods. They wanted to get back, grab Chinese iPhones and bring them back quickly. And I totally get it in a in a true free market system. Okay.Congressmen Dusty Johnson: [00:23:49] Listen, you get to decide how you want to make your money. If you can make more money doing that, I guess, good on you. But these guys are using American ports. And I just think at some point you need some basic reciprocity. And we pass the Ocean Shipping Reform Act. It was signed into law last year that said, there has to be if you're going to use American ports, you've got to play by some very basic rules of the road, like not ignoring American goods just because you think it's convenient to do so. And then we're also passed out of committee two weeks ago, a bill that would allow trucks if they add a sixth axle to increase weight so we can have those truck drivers when they're on the road do so safely. It doesn't cause more damage to the roads, it doesn't cause more accidents. It just allows those hardworking men and women to to work smarter and more efficiently. But we've got about 100 other things like that we've got to do throughout the system. If we fail to act, we're just going to give China that much more control over the global economic system.Sam Stone: [00:24:48] Congressman, how much do you think and you touched on this earlier, talking about China, but also talking about just our investment, whether it be a low orbit satellite system here in the southwest. We desperately need some new consideration for desalination and pipelining of water. The power grid across the country is very vulnerable and needs to be hardened. There are all these major infrastructure needs or or project needs here and around the world that we should be participating in investing in. How much more would the American public trust our government if we just started getting these things done?Congressmen Dusty Johnson: [00:25:29] There is a sense that the era of big projects in America is kind of in the rear view mirror. And I think that's sad because I think the story of the 20th century in this country was so much about big projects, big dreams coming to fruition. I mean, rural electrification. The universal service where we everybody got a dial tone. The interstate highway system. We connected every one of the states. The the damn system that provides, you know, 15 or 20% of the electricity for this country. I mean, it was just major homerun after major homerun where we said this is America, this is the land of builders. And now it's like you can't I mean, you can't get anything built without spending, you know, ten years in litigation.Chuck Warren: [00:26:20] Right. Right.Chuck Warren: [00:26:21] And and it's people it.Congressmen Dusty Johnson: [00:26:22] Makes me sad because we need we need to bring back that American swagger of just competence and construction. That doesn't mean we're going to roll over any landowners rights, but I think it does mean that these getting a maybe answer after ten years is obnoxious. Let's give these companies a yes or no so they can figure out what to go invest in.Chuck Warren: [00:26:44] Well, maybe he's the third worst answer. The best answer is yes. Second best, no. The worst answers may be and that's what we keep doing and what's finally what's funny is the progressives want to keep pushing these things that delay these projects, which would help a lot of low income and middle income families. And I sort of have to agree with Sam. Sam thinks this is on purpose because they want to break America. Congressman 30s, tell us what's going good in America right now.Congressmen Dusty Johnson: [00:27:06] Well, research and development, technology, I mean, those are really the things that make people's everyday lives better. Government tries to screw that stuff up, but thank goodness we're failing and innovation continues.Chuck Warren: [00:27:21] We're with Congressman Dusty Johnson. Congressman, thank you for joining us today. You can find him on all social media, on Twitter at Rep. Dusty Johnson, same thing on Instagram, same thing on Facebook. Congressman, thanks a million.Sam Stone: [00:27:33] Never on TikTok.Chuck Warren: [00:27:34] Never on TikTok. It's communist. Thank you, Congressman. We appreciate it.Congressmen Dusty Johnson: [00:27:38] You bet. Thank you.Chuck Warren: [00:27:38] Bye bye. Bye.Sam Stone: [00:28:06] All right. Welcome back to Breaking Battlegrounds with your host, Chuck Warren. I'm Sam Stone. Folks, are you concerned with stock market volatility, especially with Joe Biden in office? What if you could invest in a portfolio with a high fixed rate of return that's not correlated to the stock market? A portfolio where you know what each monthly statement would look like with no surprises, you can turn your monthly income on or off, compound it, whatever you choose. There's no loss of principle. If you need your money back at any time, your interest is compounded daily, you're paid monthly and there are no fees. So go to investyrefy.com that's invest the letter Y, then refy.com or call them at 88yrefy 24 and get yourself in line to earn up to a 10.25% fixed rate of return. That's right, folks. 10.25% fixed. It's the best deal out there in investing today. So give them a call.investyefy.com or 888 y refy 24 and tell them Chuck and Sam sent you? All right, Chuck. Next up, a guest I'm very excited to talk to doing some very good work in the area of military affairs particularly, he is a specialist in defense and international affairs. They focus on maritime and Air Force developments. Welcome to the program, Dr. James Bosbotinis, He and thank you for joining us this morning. You have some fantastic pieces out on hypersonic weaponry that's being developed. Can you tell us first what is a hypersonic weapon?Dr James Bosbotinis: [00:29:29] Thank you very much. And, uh, it's my pleasure to be speaking to you today. A hypersonic weapon is basically a missile that travels at speeds of in excess of Mach five or faster than the five times faster than the speed of sound. The difference between a hypersonic missile as attention is being drawn to now and a traditional ballistic missile which travel at speeds above Mach five and have been in service, uh, for decades now, is that the new generation of hypersonic weapons that are being developed? Hypersonic glide vehicles and hypersonic cruise missiles can maneuver within the atmosphere. Which complicates detection, tracking and defense.Sam Stone: [00:30:27] That's one of the first questions. Thank you. That was one of the first questions I was going to ask, because obviously a traditional ICBM is actually coming in faster than than these things go. And we have developed some systems to try to at least target those and be able to shoot them down. But your concern, you say, with these.Sam Stone: [00:30:46] Is.Sam Stone: [00:30:48] There's almost no way to for our current defense systems, our ship point defense systems, our national defense systems to deal with this threat as it evolves at this time.Dr James Bosbotinis: [00:31:00] Defense against the latest hypersonic threats at present is very limited. The United States has said it has a nascent capability against, for example, hypersonic glide vehicles, with the Sm6 deployed on US Navy warships. And it's working to develop a glide phase interceptor, which will enter service later this decade, and that will be capable of intercepting the latest hypersonic threats that are being developed, as we have seen most recently in Ukraine. The Patriot Air defense. Air and missile defense system does offer a capability against the Russian kinzhal The Kinzhal is described as a hypersonic weapon system. And strictly speaking, it is. It travels faster than Mach five. But. It's a sort of entry level hypersonic system. It's an it's effectively an air launched ballistic missile. It's an air launched version of the Russian Iskander Ground launched tactical ballistic missile. So it it falls within the intercept capability of existing systems such as Patriot. The higher end systems glide vehicles such as the Chinese DF 17 or a hypersonic cruise missile. They are much more taxing.Chuck Warren: [00:32:30] Why should Americans, our brothers and sisters, the United Kingdom, freedom loving countries be concerned about Russia and China having hypersonic missiles? Explain to them what is the danger of them in practical terms.Dr James Bosbotinis: [00:32:46] A hypersonic weapons by virtue of their speed, their flight paths, their unpredictable trajectories and maneuverability, make detecting, tracking and engaging them very difficult. So they are particularly well suited to striking very high value targets. It's why the United States, for example, is working to develop its own hypersonic weapons capability. If you want to hit something that is extremely high value, such as an aircraft carrier or a deeply buried, hardened command facility, a hypersonic weapon provides. That effective means of penetrating an adversary's own missile defenses and striking it. Are not a panacea. They're not going to be silver bullets. They form part of a wider strike complex, but because of those particular characteristics, they pose particular challenges. And that is why they are eliciting so much concern in terms of potential adversaries deploying them.Chuck Warren: [00:34:02] The United States obviously omits and shows its power around the world through our aircraft carriers. There are amazing vessels. They show amazing presence. Why would a hypersonic missile mean to our aircraft carrier presence throughout the world? Let's say Russia or Iran have one. What does that mean?Dr James Bosbotinis: [00:34:24] It provides a potent means of targeting the carrier. But a carrier is inherently an extremely difficult target to prosecute. It's mobile. A US carrier will be moving hundreds of miles a day. The maritime environment is inherently dynamic, and to find, fix, track and target a carrier is difficult. You need a very robust supporting kill chain or intelligence surveillance reconnaissance systems that can locate the carrier, keep track of it and help cue long range strike systems onto it. And those systems can be targeted kinetically so reconnaissance aircraft can be shot down. They can be targeted for electronic warfare and cyber means. So the system can be disrupted in a in a variety of means. But. Assuming that it's still functioning, the adversary can launch a hypersonic missile, which because it travels so much quicker than a long range than other subsonic long range strike systems, the time a subsonic cruise missile would take to travel, say, 600 miles in an hour. A hypersonic missile can do in, say, ten minutes. So because it's compressing the time that it takes to travel to the target, it means that the carrier and its strike group have a much shorter window in which to detect, track and engage the incoming threat. So that is why hypersonic weapons are seen as posing such a challenge to time critical targets such such as an aircraft carrier.Chuck Warren: [00:36:07] You need people who think on their feet.Sam Stone: [00:36:09] Yeah. One of one of your recent articles on that same point, it's not just compressing the time that a carrier or carrier group has to deal with an incoming threat, But the potential for these missiles to be used in both conventional and nuclear configurations means that for political decision makers, these may compress the time in ways that really, really restrict their ability to react to a situation intelligently. Right.Dr James Bosbotinis: [00:36:39] Yes, there's always the problem with dual capable systems, that is weapon systems which are both nuclear and conventional, that when one is traveling towards you, you don't know whether it is a nuclear weapon on its way or a conventional weapon. And that poses all sorts of challenges in terms of escalation control. Uh, for example, the Chinese DF 26 intermediate range ballistic missile is both conventional and nuclear. And if one is launched in the event of hostilities at Guam, uh, there is no way of telling until it detonates what warhead it it is carrying. So with any dual capable long range strike system that discern that, discerning whether it is nuclear or conventional is a particular problem. And, uh, certainly hypersonic missiles would be would be no different. And, uh. The Russian Kinzhal system, which is being employed against Ukraine, is a dual capable system. And. It's likely that other hypersonic weapon systems will also be dual capable.Chuck Warren: [00:37:56] With Dr. James Bosbotinis, he is a United Kingdom based specialist in Defence and International Affairs. He is co CEO of JB Associates, a geopolitical risk advisory. What have we learned about Russia's military capabilities in Ukraine?Dr James Bosbotinis: [00:38:13] We have learnt that pre-war assessments governing how Russian military modernisation efforts have proceeded over the past decade or so were. Overoptimistic, shall we say, the rush, the deep, deep structural flaws in the Russian military, which are reflective of the wider Russian state, have not been addressed. The Russian. The Russian military. Has. Made fundamental errors. For example. In the employment of the ballistic and cruise missile forces. They spent 20 plus years developing a doctrine of how to employ these. And when war broke out, they didn't actually use them as they had written about how they would use them, which was extremely fortunate for Ukraine. The Russians haven't conducted large scale combined arms training. Their air force does not train to anywhere near the level of Western air forces. They haven't developed the joint command structures, all various issues. Their logistics system is, as we have seen.Sam Stone: [00:39:39] When I was about 11 years old, I had a chance to visit still the Soviet Union, and we were there with a group of writers who were it was the start of glasnost. They were talking about some of the environmental damage. We came back. Everyone was plowed drunk one night from a Georgian restaurant in Moscow. One of the big writers in front of us was trying to open his door to his hotel room. He fell into the door, the door frame and all fell into the room, splintered apart. He rolls over, laughing. He looks back at us and says, And you were afraid of our missiles. I think that in certain sense still describes the nature of Soviet manufacturing and weapons propaganda.Dr James Bosbotinis: [00:40:14] Yes, a lot of Russian weapons systems are not anywhere near to the same standard of equivalent Western missile systems or other weapon systems. On the other hand, they're the they're long range strike systems. They're iskandar's. They're cruise missiles, for example. They have worked uh, it's a question more of the human element in how in how the weapons are employed rather than the actual effect themselves. When a when an Iskander hits a target, it is detonating and it is causing damage and their cruise missiles have proved devastating. But the Russians, instead of launching these weapons at critical national infrastructure targets at the start of the war. Air defense systems, command and control facilities, they used them against civilian targets and firing, for the most part, firing a ballistic missile or a cruise missile against a civilian apartment block is apart from being an absolute war crime, it's also a complete waste of a weapon system. So they didn't actually employ their systems, right? Had they employed them differently, we could have seen a very different. Progression of the conflict.Sam Stone: [00:41:35] Do you think that's partially because they were trying to simply get the Ukrainian people to force a capitulation at that point? Or because that seems like the only reason you do that instead of targeting military assets.Dr James Bosbotinis: [00:41:50] Yes, indeed. The operational planning was guided by completely false assumptions. The Russian government, the Russian government thought that a Ukrainian resistance would collapse after about three days and the Ukrainian people would simply greet the Russians with open with open arms. And so perhaps they thought that there's no need to conduct air strikes against infrastructure targets. Yeah. Dr..Sam Stone: [00:42:20] Dr. James Bosbotinis is a UK based specialist in defense and international affairs, particularly focus on maritime and Air Force development. Dr. How do folks follow you and your work?Dr James Bosbotinis: [00:42:29] I'm on Twitter, I'm on LinkedIn. I write on a freelance basis for a variety of publications.Sam Stone: [00:42:36] We appreciate you having having you on the program here today. I want to bring you back on again in the future. Thank you so much. We're running out of time here in the program, Dr.. But I very much appreciate your time this morning. Well, welcome to the podcast. Only segment of breaking battlegrounds. Want to say thank you to both of our guests today, Congressman Dusty Johnson and Dr. James Bosbotinis. Good discussions there from both of them, Chuck. But there's obviously some really big news kind of stirring the country right now. Broke last night with the indictment of Donald Trump on a number of charges, which are frankly hard to deny that that he did do those things. And it's hard, hard to say he didn't commit a crime, on the other hand. The prosecution. I have a real issue with the prosecution of Donald Trump. When you're not prosecuting Hillary Clinton, when you're not prosecuting everyone else who's taken the documents, it's this way.Chuck Warren: [00:43:40] It's again, a double standard. And that's the problem with it. You know what? I understand and this could be wrong, is he was contacted by our archives and he delivered in January 20th, 22, 15 boxes of documents that they said should not have been taken from the White House. So he gave those back. And then through tips or something, I don't know. It's a little unclear. He supposedly had more documents and that's hence we end up getting a raid in August. So the question is, you know, what they're saying is different versus other people is that when he was approached about it or confronted however you want to term it, he sort of dug his heels on some documents. Now, again, you and I have discussed this. I have always believed that there was such chaos in that White House in the last days that who knows what's packing those boxes, right? Well, yeah. I mean I mean, who knows? I mean, stuff gets thrown in boxes all the time. I mean, they're talking about finding pictures within there and Newsweek and and magazines. So it tells me this wasn't a really well conceived conspiracy to take documents. So the question is, I think.Sam Stone: [00:44:52] They were just throwing everything in the offices in boxes and moving.Chuck Warren: [00:44:55] Out the door. And I think and I think they're going fast because they were disputing 2020. So I think that was their focus plus running the country. And then I think, oh my goodness, it's Sunday and we got to leave Tuesday or whatever. And but I.Sam Stone: [00:45:07] Also don't think that's terribly different than what ends up getting taken out of there by every previous president. Yeah.Chuck Warren: [00:45:13] And and that's what I just don't know. I really wish they would tell us what these documents supposedly are that are endangering national security.Sam Stone: [00:45:19] I mean, my problem with that is claiming it's endangering national security at all, because at the end of the day, Donald Trump is not some foreign asset or weapon that whole narrative has been garbage. If anything, he kept these things for ego. You know, I mean, it's as many presidents do, have a giant ego and they want to be able to, you know, show people after their career this letter they got from the president of France or whatever.Chuck Warren: [00:45:46] Well, there's going to be so much more to come. Again, it does show why Hillary Clinton is not biased, why DOJ is protecting Hunter Biden. These are concerning matters. And if you're going to apply the rule of law, I want it to be applied. Even Steven, I don't want you to be picking who you decide should be prosecuted and who should not. And right now, I think this is the problem for DOJ. Now, I think it's really funny. Look, if you prosecuted.Sam Stone: [00:46:17] Clinton, I would have no problem with them.Chuck Warren: [00:46:19] Prosecuting. I think I think a real funny thing is here's the Biden administration saying we didn't know anything about it till we saw the indictment come through. Oh, come on. Just just I mean, just it's just better say I don't know. It's just such a lie. And the thing is, it puts when they do that.Sam Stone: [00:46:32] Well, they can't be honest because they're using the DOJ to target their political adversary.Chuck Warren: [00:46:36] So if you are a Trump supporter or are you inclined to believe the government is doing rotten things, making a statement like that, people like, come on, of course you know about this, right? And so it will be interesting. You know, we still have the investigation of January 6th. We still have the Georgia investigation, which I'd be surprised if indictments don't come out of that. I mean.Sam Stone: [00:47:01] They're going to.Chuck Warren: [00:47:02] It's a big it's a becoming. Is it becoming just such white noise now that people are ignoring it? That's my.Sam Stone: [00:47:08] Question. It's white noise right up until the point where they actually convict him and lock him up. I mean, which they're really threatening, like lengthy prison sentences with some of this. Yeah. I mean, so we'll see how this plays out. But I got to say, I mean, yeah, I agree. He broke the law and there should not there should be consequences when you break the law. But on the other hand, if the consequences apply only to one side, then you don't have a law.Chuck Warren: [00:47:31] You just. Well, that's.Chuck Warren: [00:47:32] Well, that's that's not rule of law. Yeah. And that's the problem with it. So, you know, it's got to be clearly implemented for everybody or not at all. And that's what apparently that's not what we're even at. We're just like we're going to depending who the political party opponent is, we're prosecuting.Sam Stone: [00:47:48] So this is this is a really politicized federal law enforcement and DOJ right now. And it's really damaging to.Chuck Warren: [00:47:54] It really needs to be cleaned up. It would be I would truly be interested in Congress passing something about some sort of lack of a better term term limits in the DOJ.Sam Stone: [00:48:07] Yeah, absolutely.Chuck Warren: [00:48:09] Something has to be done. It's too entrenched with bureaucratic attorneys.Sam Stone: [00:48:12] Well, you know what I was thinking about the other night and I didn't realize it at the time, but I remember some of these articles from the time period Clinton towards the end of his term, and then Obama went big with this. They didn't place people leaving their administration in your typical political appointee positions. They got them jobs inside the bureaucracy in all these agencies. And now we're seeing the the fruit of having ceded all the federal agencies with political Democrat political activists rather than people who were there to actually do the job. They are infiltrated in every bureaucracy from the mid levels up. Right. And that's a hard thing to dis entrench.Chuck Warren: [00:48:54] Exactly. Exactly.Sam Stone: [00:48:56] You're talking about trenches switching topics here, Chuck, But there was a big announcement recently by the governor of Arizona about our water situation here, where they project a 4% deficit in water over the next hundred years.Chuck Warren: [00:49:11] How much was.Sam Stone: [00:49:11] It? 4% over 100 years. So we're not talking end of the world stuff. But the way they did the press conference, it certainly made it sound that way. And they made a big announcement about we're going to stop new construction in Arizona. Now, what they meant was new construction outside of areas served by water grids. Right. If you're on the Phoenix Water or Tucson Water, Flagstaff, water, whatever, that wasn't what they were talking about. But the way they present it, I really believe the environmentalist movement is pushing for planet wide population reduction. They don't want any new growth. They don't want any of this stuff. And this governor fell in this trap. And all week long I've been dealing with businesses from across the country going, hey, we were considering Arizona. We don't think that's viable. Now, if what your governor just said, they botched this thing from top to bottom. Katie Hobbs is utterly incompetent when it comes to handling the routine business of government, because you could have put this out in a press release with nothing else, instituted the exact same policy. We're not going to allow growth in these wildcat areas where you don't have water. That's that is smart policy. Right. But the implementation of it and how she went about it. So Ham handed that it's literally hurt the state of Arizona and that ties to what we're talking with Congressman Johnson. Look, the solution to all of this. The entire US Southwest needs water enhancements. We need new water, whether from the Snake River to the north, the Mississippi, Missouri's to the east or from the Gulf of Mexico, You.Chuck Warren: [00:50:44] Know, And the.Chuck Warren: [00:50:45] Technology is there to.Sam Stone: [00:50:45] Do it. Yeah, it is. But the problem.Chuck Warren: [00:50:47] Is you're gonna have a bunch of environmentalists sue, which you're going to delay at 10 to 20 years. And this is literally issues you can resolve in two years.Sam Stone: [00:50:54] It absolutely is. And that's the other point we brought. I brought this up with one of the other congressmen we've had on the program. But I don't understand why we don't just declare if something is environmentally beneficial and taking the southwest off of groundwater and off of river water would be massively environmentally beneficial. Augmenting our river water, taking us off of groundwater would help the environment here tremendously, period. No question. In that case, why? Why are these why are they allowed to sue on Nepa or any of this other stuff? The project should go forward. You just do the engineering reviews and you're done.Chuck Warren: [00:51:31] Well, it should be like something. Eminent domain. Yeah, that's.Sam Stone: [00:51:33] What I mean.Chuck Warren: [00:51:34] Come on in. And just this needs to be done and it's just ridiculous.Sam Stone: [00:51:37] Like in this case, Look, all your lawsuits. No, you know, we don't even entertain those things in this type of situation because it is an issue of national security and safety for our citizens here in the southwest and to have an assured water supply.Chuck Warren: [00:51:49] And it helps the environment.Sam Stone: [00:51:51] And it helps the environment.Chuck Warren: [00:51:52] Yeah. What do you say? You support helping the environment, but you're fighting something that can absolutely help the environment, right?Sam Stone: [00:51:59] That that is the ridiculousness of the modern environmental movement, which to me is frankly just a eugenicist movement in hiding.Chuck Warren: [00:52:07] Let's finish one last topic here. The Tampa Bay Rays are a third through the season and they are almost 30 games above 500.Sam Stone: [00:52:16] Chuck, I'm a Red Sox fan and this is the podcast segment, so I can say what I really feeling right now, which is f**k you, man. Seriously, they are. No, they're amazing.Chuck Warren: [00:52:25] They're amazing. They are an amazing organization.Sam Stone: [00:52:28] What they do with no money, I mean, no money.Chuck Warren: [00:52:32] And you sort of get the sense the Diamondbacks have taken a page from them, what they've building up on their farm system.Sam Stone: [00:52:36] I've said for years, if you if you watched and do what Tampa does, but just add a little money to the mix where you can keep some of your best players from time to time and you don't watch them go to the Padres. That's that's the that's the formula.Chuck Warren: [00:52:49] I agree.Chuck Warren: [00:52:49] I agree.Sam Stone: [00:52:50] Well, in which the Diamondbacks can go lock up Corbin Carroll right now.Chuck Warren: [00:52:55] Well, they have, haven't they.Sam Stone: [00:52:56] Did they? Yeah. Did I miss.Chuck Warren: [00:52:57] That? Was that the ten year deal?Chuck Warren: [00:52:59] I don't. Corbin Carroll? Yeah.Chuck Warren: [00:53:00] Corbin Carroll, ten years.Sam Stone: [00:53:01] We're looking at the girl in the studio who's getting married to a professional ballplayer. And she doesn't.Chuck Warren: [00:53:05] She knows.Chuck Warren: [00:53:05] Nothing. She knows nothing. Corbin She hasn't.Sam Stone: [00:53:08] Even given us an update on the Idaho murders.Chuck Warren: [00:53:10] I believe. I believe Corbin Carroll signed a ten year deal. That's what everybody's been going on about early. They just tied him in. So. Okay.Sam Stone: [00:53:15] Well, thank goodness for that. Yeah.Chuck Warren: [00:53:17] By the way, anything before we close off on the Idaho murders that we should be aware of?Kiley Kipper: [00:53:20] No, not too much. I think they had like a few 20 days ago or something like that. They had 60 days to determine if he was going to get the death penalty or not. And then Brian Kielburger has now come out and said that he doesn't want cameras in the courtroom. So now that's the whole hot discussion is like, well, then let's have them, because why does he not want why do we care what he says?Speaker4: [00:53:40] Chuck.Sam Stone: [00:53:41] You okay with the death penalty? In this case?Chuck Warren: [00:53:44] I'm always okay of the death penalty.Speaker4: [00:53:46] It's a rare.Chuck Warren: [00:53:47] Exception that I'm not okay with the death penalty.Sam Stone: [00:53:50] And that's the final.Sam Stone: [00:53:51] Word today from Chuck.Chuck Warren: [00:53:54] Maybe with those 9% shoplifters you wrote about.Sam Stone: [00:53:56] Oh, yeah. No, we can start with them for sure.Sam Stone: [00:53:59] Right?Sam Stone: [00:54:00] Retail theft off with his head.Chuck Warren: [00:54:03] Sam, closing here. How much does it cost the average American annually for shoplifting?Sam Stone: [00:54:07] Yeah. So go go on. Our substack folks, because we ran the numbers on this Capital One putting out a survey and then I broke the numbers down $318 per person.Chuck Warren: [00:54:17] That's probably.Chuck Warren: [00:54:17] Undercounted and.Sam Stone: [00:54:18] That's undercounted. If you read the article, you realize that's the direct cross from the losses that they're taking from shoplifting. Then you add in all the additional security, the other measures that they're putting in place. Those things all cost money, too. There's probably a lot, as we saw with Lululemon, that's not reported because of politics, essentially where they're fired, two employees for even just reporting a theft to the police. I doubt they're reporting their numbers accurately and probably there's a bunch like them. This might be a $5,600 per person a year tax is what we're facing.Chuck Warren: [00:54:53] Well, and folks, if you are purchasing from Lululemon, realize there is a shoplifting tax assessed on your clothing, whether whether they listed or itemized it or not, you're paying for.Sam Stone: [00:55:03] It before they go to Lululemon, though, Chuck, and this is a free plug. Isn't your former assistants, Katrina, doesn't she have a a clothing line or company that she.Chuck Warren: [00:55:12] Works with a clothing line in Salt Lake knowing the ownership, they will not tolerate shoplifting.Chuck Warren: [00:55:17] So okay.Sam Stone: [00:55:18] What's the name? Do we do you know? Do I know?Chuck Warren: [00:55:21] We'll tell We'll put.Chuck Warren: [00:55:22] It on our social.Sam Stone: [00:55:23] On our substack. Yeah. Hey, look. Good opportunity to pay pay for a product from someone who actually feels the way you do.Chuck Warren: [00:55:29] Exactly. Well, folks, we hope you have a great weekend. We hope you enjoyed our guests today, both wonderful people to have on the show and we hope you share it. You can download our podcast, go to breaking battlegrounds, dot vote, share it, rate it. We'd appreciate it. Help our audience grow. Have a great weekend. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit breakingbattlegrounds.substack.com

The pod returns after a hiatus to discuss the recent debt ceiling crisis and content of the so-called Fiscal Responsibility Act that included (bad) policy provisions on student loan repayments, work requirements for SNAP recipients, and construction of the Mountain Valley Pipeline.  Articles referenced: "We May Be About to Find Out How This Republican Party Really Works" by Ezra Klein (New York Times) Enjoy Your Last Days of Not Paying Student Loans (New York Magazine)

On May 31st, Congressman Crenshaw voted to pass the Fiscal Responsibility Act, voting with more than 2/3 of the Republican conference to avoid a catastrophic debt limit default. Below is a statement from the Congressman on why he voted yes: "We vote based on realistic choices, not what we wish were true. Of course, I wish that Ronald Reagan was resurrected, and we had 60 votes in the Senate. Then we could enact massive reforms that truly put our spending on a reasonable path. But this isn't the reality we have now. The reality we have is a slim House majority while radical Democrats have the Senate and White House. Our leverage is limited.  But even with that limited leverage, we forced Biden to give up on every single demand he had. He first wanted a clean debt ceiling increase without reforms. We said no. He then wanted tax increases. We said no. He wanted cuts to our military. We said no. In the final bill, Biden got nothing, and we got about half of what we wanted. Of course we wanted more, but again, our leverage was limited. Here are other facts to consider. Whether you like it or not, there has to be a debt ceiling increase. The economic consequences are catastrophic if you let the government default on its debt. Your 401k would crash as markets crash, the cost of borrowing would increase and make our debt worse, and recession would be imminent. Only third-world countries have allowed this to happen. Some might say, “well if we cut spending, we wouldn't have to increase the debt!” But this isn't really true, not unless you're fine with abolishing our Social Security and Medicare programs for our seniors, which account for nearly TWO-THIRDS of all spending. Yes, you read that right. Nearly TWO THIRDS. That means during these negotiations we are only arguing over 11% of all spending. Why? Because no one wants to touch Social Security, Medicare, Veterans benefits, or the military. That leaves all the other government agencies and programs which only account for 11% of spending. So, even if you abolished the entire federal government apart from the military, you WOULD STILL HAVE TO INCREASE THE DEBT LIMIT! So, given that there is no choice but to increase the debt ceiling, and given we only have control of the House, where does that leave us? With what options? The options are clear. They are (1) a Biden-preferred clean debt ceiling increase with no reforms, (2) a default and say goodbye to your 401k, or (3) a debt ceiling increase with all the reforms we got. Anyone claiming there is another option is being EXTREMELY dishonest with you. So what reforms did we get? About $1.5 TRILLION dollar decrease in spending over 10 years. Not bad. Environmental permitting reform which is HUGE for our energy sector. This means Biden can't wait 10 years to allow a permit for a new highway lane or gas pipeline. We finally forced the reforms we've been trying to do for YEARS. Billions of dollars in investment and jobs for Texas will be unleashed because of this. We also got some additional work requirements on Food Stamp programs and required some spending limitations (called “pay as you go” requirements) on any administrative action taken by the Biden Administration. We also cut all funding for new IRS agents this year. There's more, but those are the basics. The complaints from other Republicans aren't about what's in the bill, they're about what's not in the bill. But this is faulty logic. I can ALWAYS vote against something because it doesn't have something I want. And it's true, I can come up with a MILLION things this bill doesn't have. No, it doesn't fix our border, nor does it cure cancer, nor does it give me a new eye. But these are ridiculous excuses not to vote for a bill. Some Republicans will nitpick each of those wins and say they're not enough. Well, I agree! They're not enough! But that's not that question. The QUESTION is (1) was this the best we could get? And (2) is it better than the alternatives, which is a clean debt ceiling increase or a default? The answers to both questions are very clearly YES. Many Members of Congress are afraid to take tough votes even when they know it's the right thing to do. I'm not. Never have been. I could EASILY have taken the easy way out and voted “no,” and kept my voters in the dark about the truth. No one would write to me to complain about a “no” vote. But I won't do that. I can't help but tell you the truth. And the truth is that this bill was the best case scenario given the political reality we live in. There is no evidence from anyone that we could have negotiated a better outcome. None. Therefore, I had to vote yes."

EELP Senior Staff Attorney Hanna Perls, Executive Director Carrie Jenks, and Electricity Law Initiative Director Ari Peskoe break down recent changes to federal permitting passed as part of the Fiscal Responsibility Act, aka the debt ceiling bill, which President Biden signed on June 3rd. Mentioned link: https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2023/5/federal-actions-to-improve-project-reviews-for-a-cleaner-and-stronger-economy Transcript: http://eelp.law.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/CleanLaw-85.pdf

John Ricco, Director of Tax & Budget Analysis at the Penn Wharton Budget Model, discusses the Fiscal Responsibility Act and the Budget Model's recent assessment of the bill. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Psalm 1 picture of the godly man involves a meditation on the law of God day and night. This is especially important in a day like ours in which there is little time and resources dedicated to what a godly man does. Jeremy Kluth has dedicated his life to memorizing Scripture and encouraging others to the same thing. How do we assist our families in memorization-- Here are a variety of creative, helpful hints for this extremely important element of family discipleship in the Word of God.--This program includes---1. The World View in 5 Minutes with Adam McManus -34th anniversary of Tiananmen Square Massacre, Biden's bizarrely named -Fiscal Responsibility Act,- Franklin Graham preached to 70,000 in Seoul, South Korea---2. Generations with Kevin Swanson

This week we talk about the Fiscal Responsibility Act, Speaker McCarthy, and the US debt limit.We also discuss President Biden, economic crises, and MAGA Republicans.Support the show: patreon.com/letsknowthings / letsknowthings.com/support / understandary.comShow notes/transcript: letsknowthings.com ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

This week we talk about the Fiscal Responsibility Act, Speaker McCarthy, and the US debt limit.We also discuss President Biden, economic crises, and MAGA Republicans.Show notes/transcript: letsknowthings.com This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit letsknowthings.substack.com/subscribe

Joe Selvaggi talks with CATO Institute budget expert Chris Edwards about the details of the newly passed Fiscal Responsibility Act, which avoids crossing the debt ceiling in exchange for slowing spending growth. Guest: Chris Edwards occupies the Kilts Family Chair in Fiscal Studies at Cato and is the editor of Down​siz​ing​Gov​ern​ment​.org. He is a top expert […]

Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy might be proud of the “Fiscal Responsibility Act” debt ceiling deal he worked out with President Joe Biden, but the lack of hard spending cuts means there is little to celebrate for conservatives.

Joe Selvaggi talks with CATO Institute' budget expert Chris Edwards about the details of the newly passed Fiscal Responsibility Act, which avoids crossing the debt ceiling in exchange for slowinf spending growth.

Marc Goldwein is the Senior Vice President and Senior Policy Director for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. The Fiscal Responsibility Act Builds Momentum on Needed Deficit Reduction

Live—from the campus of Hillsdale College in beautiful Hillsdale Michigan— this is Scot Bertram in for Steve on the Steve Gruber Show for   –Thursday, June 2nd 2023—   —Here are 3 big things you need to know—   One — President Biden is expected to sign off on a House and Senate approved bill that raises the nation's debt ceiling for the next two years.  This, after the Senate voted 63-36 in favor of the measure on Thursday.  The Fiscal Responsibility Act will raise the debt limit through January 1, 2025, and implement caps on government spending and policy changes. Two—  Governor Whitmer has formed the Growing Michigan Together Council to investigate why people are leaving the state and come up with a strategy to attract and protect jobs.  She says they will focus on upgrading transportation, improving education, and keeping the state's economic momentum going.         Three -- Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt will send National Guard troops to the southern border in response to Texas Governor Greg Abbott's call for reinforcements.  Stitt says he believes it's in the best interest of Oklahoma and the nation to take decisive action to address what he calls the federal government's utter failure to secure the southern border.

Congressman Tim Walberg. Fiscal Responsibility Act

ABC News White House Correspondent joins the Steve Cochran Show to discuss what the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 is and America's fiscal future.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Joe Biden signed the Fiscal Responsibility Act to avoid a default on the federal government's debt by raising the debt ceiling. Newly obtained text messages show the heads of both major teacher's unions personally texting then-CDC Director Rochelle Walensky as the agency was putting together a scientific analysis of reopening schools during coronavirus. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Turner said the United States is seeing “unbelievable aggression” from communist China after a Chinese fighter jet flew directly in front of a U.S. reconnaissance plane over the South China Sea, and a Chinese warship came within 150 yards of a U.S. Navy destroyer. CIA Director William Burns made a covert trip to China in May in an effort to open up communications with Chinese intelligence leaders in the aftermath of the appearance of a spy balloon over the U.S. The person who alerted U.S. lawmakers last month to the existence of an FBI record that allegedly shows that then-Vice President Joe Biden was involved in a criminal bribery scheme is a respected FBI source that has been used by the agency for years. Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel announced the date of the first Republican presidential primary debate and the criteria that candidates must meet in order to get on stage. A federal judge has ruled Friday that a Tennessee law intended to shield children from sexually explicit performances is unconstitutional. Greg Abbott signed a bill into law on Friday that makes Texas the largest state to protect children from life-altering transgender procedures. The Bible has been removed from libraries in a school district in Utah after a parent claimed that it could be considered “pornographic.” Plus, a Twitter and Disney discussion.Visit 4Patriots and prepare for whatever life sends your way. Use code Tapp at checkout for 10% off on everything in the store.Get your FREE Wealth Protection Kit from GOLDCO today by clicking the link or Call GOLDCO at 855-387-2932 to learn the 3 Simple Steps you can take right now to protect your savings with Gold and Silver!VNSH holster fits 99% of all semi-auto handguns, works without a tactical belt, lets you carry in multiple positions, and carries 2 fully-loaded magazines. Go to http://vnsh.com/tapp to activate a $50 discount today.THE WAR ON WHITES: How Hating White People Became the New National Sport2nd SkullEinstokBeanstoxHoneyFund"Homegrown" Boone's BourbonIsland BrandsBlackout Coffee Co.Full Circle Brewing Co.Pasmosa SangriaHero SoapPatriot DepotBlue CoolersFire & FlavorKoa CoffeeBrainMDDiamond CBD

Joe Biden signed the Fiscal Responsibility Act to avoid a default on the federal government's debt by raising the debt ceiling. Newly obtained text messages show the heads of both major teacher's unions personally texting then-CDC Director Rochelle Walensky as the agency was putting together a scientific analysis of reopening schools during coronavirus. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Turner said the United States is seeing “unbelievable aggression” from communist China after a Chinese fighter jet flew directly in front of a U.S. reconnaissance plane over the South China Sea, and a Chinese warship came within 150 yards of a U.S. Navy destroyer. CIA Director William Burns made a covert trip to China in May in an effort to open up communications with Chinese intelligence leaders in the aftermath of the appearance of a spy balloon over the U.S. The person who alerted U.S. lawmakers last month to the existence of an FBI record that allegedly shows that then-Vice President Joe Biden was involved in a criminal bribery scheme is a respected FBI source that has been used by the agency for years. Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel announced the date of the first Republican presidential primary debate and the criteria that candidates must meet in order to get on stage. A federal judge has ruled Friday that a Tennessee law intended to shield children from sexually explicit performances is unconstitutional. Greg Abbott signed a bill into law on Friday that makes Texas the largest state to protect children from life-altering transgender procedures. The Bible has been removed from libraries in a school district in Utah after a parent claimed that it could be considered “ographic.” Plus a Twitter and Disney discussion.

Rep. Gary Palmer (R-Ala.) voted against the Fiscal Responsibility Act that passed the House on Wednesday night. Why did he vote against it while other Alabama Republicans voted for it? Also, what is the debt ceiling? How do we fix the budget and convince people that our debt really does matter? Find out with Rep. Gary Palmer on this episode of "Rick & Bubba University"! Sponsors: Patriot Mobile - We are proud to partner with Patriot Mobile because they never sent a penny to the left, they will NEVER SILENCE YOU and they are America's ONLY Christian Conservative wireless provider. Switching is easy! Keep your phone number, bring your own phone or buy a new one. Build your own bundle with multi-line discounts and save even more. Go to https://PatriotMobile.com/RICKBUBBA or call their US-based customer service team at 972-PATRIOT. Veterans and first responders save even more. Füm: Füm is an innovative, award-nominated device that does just that. Instead of electronics, Füm is completely natural Instead of vapor, Füm uses flavored air. AND Instead of harmful chemicals, Füm uses all-natural delicious flavors.You get it… Instead of bad, Füm is good. It's a habit you're FREE to enjoy and makes replacing your bad habit easy. Your Füm comes with an adjustable airflow dial and is designed with moveable parts and magnets for fidgeting, giving your fingers a lot to do which is helpful for de-stressing and anxiety while breaking your habit. Stopping is something we all put off because it's hard, but switching to Füm is easy, enjoyable, and even fun. Füm has served over 100,000 customers and has thousands of success stories, and there's no reason that can't be you. Join Füm in accelerating humanity's breakup from destructive habits by picking up the Journey Pack today. Head to https://tryfum.com/RICKBUBBA to save an additional 10% off your order today. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 has just passed as a collaborative effort between both Democrats and Republicans, and I'm going to break it down for you. In this video I'm going to break down the top 10 takeaways from this act and how they affect crypto, the dept ceiling, funding and more! Interested in Crypto Retirement Accounts? Check out iTrust Capital! ➡️ https://itrust.capital/Bitboy

Policymakers have avoided a financial catastrophe just days before the “X-Date,” when the U.S. Treasury would have run out of money to pay its bills. Despite some opposition from members of both parties, the House and Senate chambers passed the Fiscal Responsibility Act, a compromise by Speaker McCarthy and President Biden that will raise the debt ceiling until January of 2025. While the Hill was consumed by these negotiations, the judiciary continued to hold insurrectionists accountable for their roles in the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol. Stewart Rhodes, the leader of the Oath Keepers, was sentenced to eighteen years in prison for seditious conspiracy, which the sentencing judge called one of the most serious crimes an individual in America can commit. The sentencing was a victory for democracy, but also a reminder of the anger that still courses through the country and fuels our political system. The New Yorker staff writers Susan B. Glasser, Jane Mayer, and Evan Osnos analyze these two recent events and consider whether the political center can hold in such a rage-filled America.

We all recall the comic strip, with Lucy always promising Charlie Brown that she'd hold the football...but always pulling it away. That reminds us of the "Fiscal Responsibility Act"...but guest host Jeff Stein wonders who is really Charlie Brown in this scenario. Judge Jeanine Pirro, Wendy Patrick, Robert Bork Jr., and Sen. Marsha Blackburn joined guest host Jeff Stein in the conversation!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Senate ended the threat of a debt default by passing the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 on June 1. The measure heads to the president's desk, whose signature will lay the matter to rest for at least the next 19 months. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis kicked off his first visit to New Hampshire as a declared presidential candidate on June 1. We have more on the GOP candidate's remarks. SATs are changing. We take a look at what can be expected when they're rolled out to students this fall. ⭕️ Watch in-depth videos based on Truth & Tradition at Epoch TV

It appears Congress has reached a resolution on the debt ceiling standoff and the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 is now headed to President Biden's desk for signing into law. But could there be elements of this deal that actually increase the odds of a recession happening soon? When indeed the debt ceiling is raised, the US Treasury will be forced to replenish the Treasury General Account by selling somewhere around $1 trillion in bonds. This will vacuum up liquidity from the system. In similar fashion, the FRA will re-start payment of student loans for the first time in over 2 years for 45 million households. These repayments will take a bite out of consumer spending when real retail sales are already declining. Will these factors overwhelm the relief the raising of the debt ceiling is expected to provide? And if so, are markets not yet pricing this in? ************************************************* At Wealthion, we show you how to protect and build your wealth by learning from the world's top experts on finance and money. Each week we add new videos that provide you with access to the foremost specialists in investing, economics, the stock market, real estate and personal finance. We offer exceptional interviews and explainer videos that dive deep into the trends driving today's markets, the economy, and your own net worth. We give you strategies for financial security, practical answers to questions like “how to grow my investments?”, and effective solutions for wealth building tailored to 'regular' investors just like you. There's no doubt that it's a very challenging time right now for the average investor. Above and beyond the recent economic impacts of COVID, the new era of record low interest rates, runaway US debt and US deficits, and trillions of dollars in monetary and fiscal stimulus stimulus has changed the rules of investing by dangerously distorting the Dow index, the S&P 500, and nearly all other asset prices. Can prices keep rising, or is there a painful reckoning ahead? Let us help you prepare your portfolio just in case the future brings one or more of the following: inflation, deflation, a bull market, a bear market, a market correction, a stock market crash, a real estate bubble, a real estate crash, an economic boom, a recession, a depression, or another global financial crisis. Put the wisdom from the money & markets experts we feature on Wealthion into action by scheduling a free consultation with Wealthion's endorsed financial advisors, who will work with you to determine the right next steps for you to take in building your wealth. SCHEDULE YOUR FREE WEALTH CONSULTATION with Wealthion's endorsed financial advisors here: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.wealthion.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Subscribe to our YouTube channel: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKMeK-HGHfUFFArZ91rzv5A?sub_confirmation=1⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Follow Adam on Twitter: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://twitter.com/menlobear⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Follow us on Facebook: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.facebook.com/Wealthion-109680281218040⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ #debtceilingdeal #stockpricebubble #areaistocksagoodinvestment ************************************************* IMPORTANT NOTE: The information and opinions offered in this video by Wealthion or its interview guests are for educational purposes ONLY and should NOT be construed as personal financial advice. We strongly recommend that any potential decisions and actions you may take in your investment portfolio be conducted under the guidance and supervision of a quality professional financial advisor in good standing with the securities industry. When it comes to investing, past performance is no guarantee of future results. Any historical returns, expected returns, or probability projections may not reflect actual future performance. All investments involve risk and may result in partial or total loss.

On this week's edition of the D.C. Debrief, host John Stolnis breaks down the passage of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 with CBN News Capitol Hill correspondent Matt Galka, specifically what's in the package that could affect the average American citizen. Also, House conservatives are after FBI Director Christopher Wray, a Senate committee holds an important hearing on America's child care crisis, and three more presidential hopefuls are set to throw their hats into the 2024 ring next week.

Congressman Ciscomani joined Mike to discuss about why he voted for the Fiscal Responsibility Act.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

4th District Congressman Bill Huizenga talks about the passage of the Fiscal Responsibility Act and it's impact moving forward.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The House is voting on the debt ceiling bill Wednesday night, and both Republican and Democratic leaders in the House are claiming victories. What do they say and why do some insist the deal is problematic? Congressman Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) joins us to offer his perspective on the debt ceiling talks. We ask him how he plans to vote. We have the highlights from a Senate hearing on the Chinese Communist Party's dangerous influence. The Justice Department is suing the West Virginia governor's son and his family's coal mining business. The Department of Justice alleges his companies failed to pay fines for violating environmental regulations. ⭕️ Watch in-depth videos based on Truth & Tradition at Epoch TV

U.S. Congressman Cory Mills is one of 71 Republicans who voted against the Fiscal Responsibility Act. Why the nay vote? I chat with Cory on Episode #398 of The ANEZ SEZ podcast...

The Fiscal Responsibility Act has passed the House and is headed to the Senate.  Meanwhile, KJP says Pres. Biden isn't to blame for holding up negotiations.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Congressman Jim McGovern on the debt ceiling and his 'no' vote on the Fiscal Responsibility Act. (June 1st, 2023). (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Less than two hours to an expected vote on the "Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023" - averting a U.S. default. Steffan says there is NO "responsibility" in this bill. Calls and texts.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We start with dipping in LIVE to the House of Representatives ahead of the vote on the "Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023." Comments from Speaker Kevin McCarthy. In and out of live coverage from CBS News all hour. Great texts. McCarthy: "This will make Americans less dependent on China." Sadly, he couldn't/cannot say, "This will make Americans less dependent on America." (New: check out our Facebook page - new #DenverInDecay pix from 18th/Sherman this afternoon.)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Congress is voting today on the Fiscal Responsibility Act, the final deal brokered by Speaker McCarthy and Republican Leadership with Biden, Schumer, and the Democrats. Some Republicans are absolutely opposed, so what should conservatives know about the deal? Trish Regan joins Jenna to discuss the details and the practical reality of the debt crisis and looming deadlines. Here's what you need to know!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On "EWTN News Nightly" tonight: June 1st is the official start of the Atlantic Hurricane Season and President Joe Biden met with federal agency leaders to talk about plans and preparations for “extreme weather events.” Meanwhile, the Fiscal Responsibility Act now before Congress does not include any cuts to social security, but if lawmakers don't do something soon, social security benefits would be automatically cut by 24% in about 10 years. One Louisiana Senator is making it his goal to save it before it's too late. A 9th Catholic priest has been shot and killed in Mexico in just the past 4 years. Editor in Chief of ACI Prensa, David Ramos, gives us an update on the priest murdered last week in Capacho, Mexico. And a young teenage girl in Australia recently lost her life after participating in a deadly social media trend on TikTok called chroming, when kids inhale harmful chemicals such as nail polish removers, deodorants and hairspray with the intent to get high. Executive Director at Responsibility.org, Leslie Kimball, joins to share her thoughts and what parents can do. Finally this evening, the Australian Embassy to the Holy See is hosting a series of events this week, highlighting the contributions of indigenous peoples. EWTN Vatican Bureau Chief, Andreas Thonhauser, sat down with the Australian Ambassador to the Holy See, Chiara Porro, to find out more. Don't miss out on the latest news and analysis from a Catholic perspective. Get EWTN News Nightly delivered to your email: https://ewtn.com/enn

An open revolt among hard-right Republicans was raised Tuesday over raising the debt ceiling. In this episode of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Politically Georgia podcast, AJC political insiders Greg Bluestein and Patricia Murphy talk about the compromise reached between Democrats and Republicans over the weekend to raise the debt limit and the challenges the issue faces in the House Rules Committee and from some Georgia leaders. Hear from U.S. Rep. Andrew Clyde, an outspoken critic of the legislation who says there is nothing responsible about the Fiscal Responsibility Act. Plus, Patricia digs deep into Greg's trip with Governor Brian Kemp's delegation to Israel for a weeklong trade mission to Israel. And our insiders will tell you who else is now slated to speak at the Georgia GOP Convention in Columbus this June.  Have a question for Greg and Patricia? Call the 24-hour Politically Georgia Podcast Hotline at (404) 526-AJCP (2527). We'll play back your question and answer it during the Listener Mailbag segment on next Friday's episode.  Links to today's topics:  Clyde among GOP hard-liners ready to vote against debt limit deal Trip to Israel lets Kemp burnish foreign policy chops and boost image in U.S. Georgia GOP convention to briefly be ‘center' of Republican universe Subscribe to the AJC: If you aren't a subscriber to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, click here to get unlimited digital access to the AJC at a special price.   Listen and follow our podcast for free at Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, or Stitcher. You can also tell your smart speaker to “play Politically Georgia podcast.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Annie has Congressional Correspondent for Fox News, Chad Pergram to talk about the upcoming votes on the new Fiscal Responsibility Act, which will deal with the upcoming payments and overall debt that the US has.

The debt ceiling deal brokered by President Joe Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy faces its first major test Tuesday, just days before a potential default. With little time for delay, the powerful House Rules Committee, which controls how, when and whether a measure will be handled on the House floor, meets at 3 p.m. to consider the Fiscal Responsibility Act.Guest: Lyn Alden, Founder of Lyn Alden Investment StrategyLyn Alden website ➜ https://bit.ly/LynAldensite

In the United States, the legislative limit on the amount of national debt that can be incurred by the US Treasury has reached its absolute limit. As it stands, the US government is limited by law to borrowing no more than $31.4 trillion, this debt ceiling is routinely reached, but once that happens Congress can simply vote to raise the ceiling and allow the US to borrow more money, and thus continue to pay the nation's debts.This time around, Republicans have put pressure on President Joe Biden by refusing to raise the debt limit unless they see some tangible federal spending cuts imposed as well as assurances on future spending. A preliminary deal has been struck, named the Fiscal Responsibility Act, it would suspend the debt ceiling until 2025. It must be voted through the House of Representatives later today before it can make its way to the Democrat-controlled Senate later this week.Will the deal satisfy both sides? And what would happen if the US defaulted on the debts it owes? Host Ciarán Hancock is joined by Irish Times Washington Correspondent Martin Wall and Jack Kelly, Senior Contributor to Forbes and Chief Executive of recruitment firm Wecrutir and The Compliance Search Group. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

*) Deal averting debt default passes first test in US Congress A deal to raise the US debt ceiling has passed its first major test in Congress, surviving a crucial vote amid a conservative backlash that resurrected the threat of the country's first-ever default. Lawmakers have until Monday next week to green-light an agreement between Republicans and Democrats to allow more borrowing and ensure the country doesn't miss loan repayments. There were sighs of relief across Washington as Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and Democratic President Joe Biden agreed on the 99-page “Fiscal Responsibility Act”. *) North Korea's bid to launch country's first spy satellite fails North Korea has said that its attempt to launch the country's first spy satellite has failed. In a statement published on state media, North Korea said a rocket carrying the spy satellite crashed into waters off the Korean Peninsula's western coast. The crash occurred after it lost thrust following the separation of its first and second stages. It said scientists were examining the cause of the failure. *) Fighting subsides in Sudan's capital after extension of ceasefire Intense fighting has subsided in Sudan's capital although sounds of gunfire could still be heard in some areas, residents said. The fighting decreased after warring parties — the Sudanese army and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces group — battling for more than six weeks agreed to extend a ceasefire just before it was due to expire. Hours before the ceasefire extension was signed, residents reported intensive fighting in all three of the adjoining cities that make up Sudan's greater capital. *) Several dead in Ukraine shelling of Luhansk village: Russia Four people have been killed and 16 injured as a result of Ukraine's shelling of the Karpaty village in the Luhansk region, the Moscow-backed local coordination centre said. The centre said on its Telegram messaging channel the shelling hit a poultry farm. There was no immediate response from Ukraine, but Kiev almost never publicly claims responsibility for attacks inside Russia or on Russian-controlled territory in Ukraine. And finally… *) First Saudi woman in orbit, other astronauts, splash down off Florida A private flight carrying two Saudi astronauts and other passengers has returned to Earth after a nine-day trip to the International Space Station. The capsule carrying the four parachuted into the Gulf of Mexico, just off the Florida Panhandle, 12 hours after undocking from the orbiting lab. The Saudi government picked up the tab for its two astronauts: Rayyanah Barnawi, a stem cell researcher who became the first Saudi woman in space; and fighter pilot Ali al Qarni.

Should Congress pass the Fiscal Responsibility Act?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Rep. David Valadao joins Broeske & Musson LIVE to discuss the Fiscal Responsibility Act.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

With all the news about what made it in or out of the Fiscal Responsibility Act over the weekend, there is also a lot of hoopla around the IRS keeping most of its new funding.  What does this mean for you? This week we are going to hit the refresh button on our publication from January entitled 87,000 New IRS Agents - 10 Things You Need to Know.

In the United States, the legislative limit on the amount of national debt that can be incurred by the US Treasury has reached its absolute limit. As it stands, the US government is limited by law to borrowing no more than $31.4 trillion, this debt ceiling is routinely reached, but once that happens Congress can simply vote to raise the ceiling and allow the US to borrow more money, and thus continue to pay the nation's debts.This time around, Republicans have put pressure on President Joe Biden by refusing to raise the debt limit unless they see some tangible federal spending cuts imposed as well as assurances on future spending. A preliminary deal has been struck, named the Fiscal Responsibility Act, it would suspend the debt ceiling until 2025. It must be voted through the House of Representatives later today before it can make its way to the Democrat-controlled Senate later this week.Will the deal satisfy both sides? And what would happen if the US defaulted on the debts it owes? Host Ciarán Hancock is joined by Irish Times Washington Correspondent Martin Wall and Jack Kelly, Senior Contributor to Forbes and Chief Executive of recruitment firm Wecrutir and The Compliance Search Group. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The debt ceiling deal. Days before a potential default, President Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy announced an agreement to suspend the debt limit for two years. The Fiscal Responsibility Act will cut spending, speed up permitting for some energy projects, enact new work requirements for food stamps and TANF, recover $28 billion in unspent Covid money, and redirect roughly $20 billion of IRS funds to other agencies. While party leaders have agreed to the deal, it still faces an uncertain path in the House and Senate, where some opposition has popped up on both sides of the aisle. You can find our previous coverage of the debt limit here. Tickets are officially live (and public!) for our event in Philadelphia on Thursday, August 3rd. Thanks to all the folks who bought tickets — we're off to an awesome start, and on track to sell this baby out! Remember: Our goal is to sell out the venue, and then take Tangle on the road. Please come join us! Tickets here. You can read today's podcast ⁠here⁠, today's “Under the Radar” story ⁠here⁠, and today's “Have a nice day” story ⁠here⁠. You can also check out our latest YouTube video here. Today's clickables: Quick hits (0:57), Today's story (3:07), Right's take (7:21), Left's take (11:16), Isaac's take (15:00), Listener question (18:44), Under the Radar (20:22), Numbers (21:01), Have a nice day (21:48) You can⁠ subscribe to Tangle by clicking here⁠ or drop something⁠ in our tip jar by clicking here.⁠ Our podcast is written by Isaac Saul and edited by Jon Lall. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.  Our newsletter is edited by Bailey Saul, Sean Brady, Ari Weitzman, and produced in conjunction with Tangle's social media manager Magdalena Bokowa, who also created our logo. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/tanglenews/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/tanglenews/support

1. Biden and McCarthy Reach Debt Ceiling Agreement; Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023; What Will Congress Do? (1:35)2. Texas House Votes to Impeach Texas Attorney General, Ken Paxton (7:50)3. Uganda President Signs Anti-Homosexuality Bill; 'Aggravated Homosexuality' Now Punishable by Death (19:13)If you enjoyed this episode, please leave me a review and share it with those you know that also appreciate unbiased news!Follow Jordan on Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube. All sources for this episode can be found here. 

Tuesday, May 30, 2023 Kerby Anderson is our host today! His first guest is long-time friend of Point of View, June Hunt. She joins Kerby in the studio to talk about her new book, Anxiety: Calming the Fearful Heart. In the second hour, Kerby will be talking about the Fiscal Responsibility Act to raise the debt ceiling, […]

Michael Cloud, U.S. Representative for the 27th District of Texas, provides an update on the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 as our nation approaches $32 trillion in debt. Andy Biggs, U.S. Representative for the 5th

The War in Russia and the Debt Ceiling Rules As many as 25 Drones were shot down in and near Moscow as the war between Russia and Ukraine entered a new stage. And on Capitol Hill, Congress members on the Rules Committee get to work on the Debt Ceiling Bill, which now has a number: H.R. 3746  - Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023. Those are just two Political stories I'm watching today, Tuesday, May 30. Please subscribe.

30/5: Ibovespa -1,2%, Nasdaq 0,3%, Dow Jones -0,2%, Dólar R$ 5,04, IRB +5% e PETZ -4% Olá, seja bem-vindo ao Fechamento de Mercado da Levante comigo Flávio Conde, e hoje é 3ª feira, 30 de maio, e programa de hoje é dedicado a Claudia (atencioso e BIOM3), Sylmara (EZTEC) e Romeu (perguntou sobre Vale). A bolsa abriu em leve, mas não aguentou e negativou mesmo com a volta dos estrangeiros e fechou em queda de -1,2% a 108.971 pontos perto da mínima de 108.552. No mês, o Ibovespa sobe 4,34% e no ano -0,69%, Por que a bolsa performou assim hoje? 1º. Hoje, a bolsa abriu em alta de olho na negociação dos EUA, mas a queda do minério e petróleo impactaram bem as ações brasileiras e até bancos e varejos caíram. 2º. Nas 15 mais negociadas 3 subiram lideradas por timidamente por BB 1%, Hapvida 4% e Eletrobras ON 0,46%. 3º. Nas 15 mais negociadas apenas 12 caíram lideraras fortemente por VALE3 -2,2%, PETR4 -0,90%, ITUB4 -1,2%, PRIO3 -2,7%, BBDC4 -2,5%, RENT3 -1,3%, B3 -1,2%, VBBR3 -3%, EQTL3 -0,20%, MGLU3 -1,6%, LREN3 -2% e ABEV3 -1,8%. 4º. O petróleo forte queda de 4% aos US$ 73,8 x US$ 77, ontem, e PETR4 -0,90% a R$ 26,44, PRIO3 -2,7% a R$ 34,12 e 3R -2,4%, R$ 29,82. Os motivos da queda do petróleo teriam sido a demora para aprovar o teto da dívida (acho um argumento fraco) e a incerteza sobre quanto a Opep+ cortará de produção na reunião que farão no domingo, dia 4. 5º. O minério caiu -1,7% aos US$ 99,8 x US$ 101,6, ontem, VALE -2,2% R$ 64,32, CMIN3 -2,8% R$ 4,44 e GGBR4 -2,5% R$ 24,32. O motivo foi a incerteza quanto a atividade econômica da China que está meio devagar no 2T23 afetando produção siderúrgica e demanda por minério. 6º. Os bancos privados caíram com ITUB4 -1,2% R$ 26,58, BBDC4 -2,5% R$ 15,73, mas BBAS3 avançou 1% R$ 44,72. De manhã, teve a notícia de aumento na inadimplência em pagamentos de cartões de crédito em 48% versus 2022 mostrando a dificuldade dos devedores pessoas físicas em pagar dívidas. 7º. As bolsas americanas reabriram e tiveram comportamentos diferentes com 0,3% do Nasdaq e -0,2% do Dow Jones com o rally de sexta-feira em tech stocks tendo esfriado e investidores aguardando à aprovação do “Fiscal Responsibility Act” que suspende o limite de dívida pública americana até 2025. É esperado que a nova leei seja aprovada na 4ª. feira na Câmara e 5º. ou 6ª. no Senado. 8º. O dólar à vista subiu mais 3 centavos, equivalente a 0,58%, de R$ 5,01 para R$ 5,04 mesmo com o dólar recuando -0,15% versus moedas fortes. Estrangeiros: O saldo de investimentos estrangeiros na Bovespa na sexta-feira, 26 de maio, ficou negativo em R$ 63 milhões, segundo dados da B3. O saldo acumulado em maio caiu para negativo em R$ 2 bi. No mês, o Ibovespa sobe 5,65%. No acumulado do ano, o saldo de estrangeiros na Bovespa está positivo em R$ 11,6 bilhões. Destaques de alta: IRBR3 +4.3% R$ 38,71 HAPV3 +4.1% R$ 4,06 RAIZ4 +1.9% R$ 3,60 DXCO3 +1.4% R$ 8,65 CCRO3 +1.4% R$ 13,77 Destaques de baixa: CVCB3 -3.8% R$ 2,98 CSNA3 -3.7% R$ 12,00 PETZ3 -3.7% R$ 7,24 VBBR3 -2.9% R$ 15,97 USIM5 -2.8% R$ 7,07 Hoje, os assinantes da Levante escolheram SANTOS BRASIL

The Debt Ceiling Deal - President Biden and Speaker McCarthy have already begun making their sales pitches to Democrats and Republicans in Congress. The Debt Ceiling Bill's official name is "Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023.'' It's a compromise that may only make one person in Washington happy.  That person would be Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen. She has been in the hot seat, warning and pleading with Lawmakers not to default on the massive debt. Congress must raise the Debt Ceiling to save the U.S. from default. This is to pay back the money we've already used.  For more on this story, visit gloriamoraga.com. I'll post a link to the "Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023.''  Let me know what you think.  

IMF demands amendment of Ghana's Fiscal Responsibility Act to strengthen financial discipline.

IMF demands an amendment to Ghana's Fiscal Responsibility Act to strengthen financial discipline.

Former National Party finance minister Ruth Richardson is best remembered for 1991's 'Mother of all Budgets', but she also helped push through the Fiscal Responsibility Act while in Opposition. She joins Thomas this week to share her memories of fiscal and monetary policy from her time in Parliament and as Minister, her thoughts on current policy today, and on the IRD's study released this week into who pays how much tax in New Zealand. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this week's show: We are joined by the Hon. Mark Latham MLC, leader of NSW One Nation. With the NSW State election coming up in March 2023, we discuss a broad range of issues such as holding the NSW Government to account over their handling of the pandemic, addressing the decline in education standards, combating Matt Kean's crazy energy policies and exposing how the Government has broken its own Fiscal Responsibility Act. Mark also addresses his recent run in with Brad Hazzard in the past week. More importantly, this episode is to also launch the NSW campaigns for Adam in Campbelltown and Rebecca in Wollondilly. Follow the Hon. Mark Latham MLC at: https://www.facebook.com/MarkLathamsOutsiders https://twitter.com/RealMarkLatham Hosted by: · Rebecca Thompson - One Nation candidate for Hume https://www.facebook.com/RebeccaThompson.PHON https://www.instagram.com/excandidate_bec/ · Adam Zahra - One Nation candidate for Macarthur https://www.facebook.com/AdamZahra.PHON https://www.instagram.com/zahra4macarthur/ · Steven Tripp - One Nation candidate for Warringah https://www.facebook.com/ExCandidate.Steven https://www.instagram.com/excandidates/ Follow us on: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ExCandidates/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/excandidates/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/ExCandidates Gab: https://gab.com/ExCandidates Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4GIXhHBogM1McL5EPGP3DT YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9zCjE0ZXfpvQcydqHSF6-g Rumble: https://rumble.com/user/ExCandidates Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-ex-candidates/id1631685864 Google Podcasts: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9hbmNob3IuZm0vcy85ZWQ1NGMzMC9wb2RjYXN0L3Jzcw Overcast: https://overcast.fm/itunes1631685864/the-ex-candidates Amazon Music: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/f6abb085-cb79-411b-958f-e7e89274332f/the-excandidates Pocket Casts: https://pca.st/jvvq30vt RadioPublic: https://radiopublic.com/the-excandidates-GZ4ZRv Stitcher: https://www.stitcher.com/show/the-ex-candidates Please share and spread the word!

With inflation upon Malaysia and wallets still tight, the govt is spending on aid packages and other election-friendly goodies, all of which come at a cost -- explaining a growing drumbeat advocating a return of GST.Dr. Veerinderjeet Singh, the Immediate Past President of Malaysian Institute of Accountants & YB Ong Kian Ming, Former MITI Deputy Minister, discuss the pros, cons, permutations and possibilities, while also offering insights into Budget 2023 and the coming Fiscal Responsibility Act.Image credit: Shutterstock

With inflation upon Malaysia and wallets still tight, the govt is spending on aid packages and other election-friendly goodies, all of which come at a cost -- explaining a growing drumbeat advocating a return of GST.Dr. Veerinderjeet Singh, the Immediate Past President of Malaysian Institute of Accountants & YB Ong Kian Ming, Former MITI Deputy Minister, discuss the pros, cons, permutations and possibilities, while also offering insights into Budget 2023 and the coming Fiscal Responsibility Act.Image credit: Shutterstock

The Chief Executive Officer of Economic Associates, Dr Ayo Teriba, has faulted the decision of the federal government to borrow to fund its recurrent expenditure, stressing that such a decision flagrantly violates Section 41 of the Fiscal Responsibility Act, 2007. He urged the federal government to adopt a cost-effective approach to generating revenues by issuing asset-backed debt and not revenue-based debt. He argued that not only that borrowing to pay salaries or generally for recurrent expenditure is against the law, but it is also not sustainable as it may lead to a debt trap which could quickly spiral out of control.

Dr. Veerinderjeet Singh, Non-Executive Chairman of Tricor Malaysia discuss with Ibrahim Sani on the control mechanism on Budget 2022. They touch on issues like the Fiscal Responsibility Act, Statement of Income Tax, and more.

Can leaning into something you were previously ashamed of actually become your superpower? We find out when Vanessa talks to Gregory Cendana, a dancer, political strategist and entrepreneur who has been named one of Washington DC's most influential 40 under 40, about dancing for social justice.  Gregory reflects upon his upbringing in a conservative Catholic Filipino family and his own coming-out journey, and why his life mission is to help others bring their full, true selves to any space they are in to engender cultural, social and political change.  We discuss why prioritizing mental health creates more sustainable communities, and how the idea of collective self-care for Asian-Americans and BIPOC communities gives us the power to heal and reclaim our stories. Plus, we extol the wonders of the adult power nap. Rest is resistance. Watch the video or read the full interview at www.thrivespicemedia.comAbout Gregory:Dancer, Strategist and Entrepreneur Gregory Cendana is President and co-founder of Can't Stop! Won't Stop! Consulting, Chief Creative Officer of Greg Dances and co-founder of The People's Collective for Justice and Liberation. He was the first openly gay and youngest-ever Executive Director of the Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance and Institute for Asian Pacific American Leadership & Advancement. Gregory was also first openly gay Chair of the National Council of Asian Pacific Americans, co-founder of the diversity initiative Inclusv, and serves on the board of directors for United We Dream as Treasurer and 18 Million Rising as Chair. Gregory was President of the United States Student Association (USSA), where he played an integral role in the passage of the Student Aid & Fiscal Responsibility Act and Healthcare and Education Reconciliation Act.  He has been named one of Washington DC's most influential 40-and-under young leaders, one of the 30 Most Influential Asian Americans Under 30, 40 Influential Asian Americans in Washington, DC's Inaugural Power 30 Under 30™ Award Recipients and the "Future of DC Politics". In his spare time, Gregory enjoys singing karaoke, choreographing dances and trying new recipes. You can find him on TikTok: @gregdances and on Instagram, Facebook or Twitter at @gregorycendana @cswsconsulting.Mental Health and Social Justice Resources:-Asian Mental Health Collective: https://www.asianmhc.org/-Can't Stop! Won't Stop! Consulting: https://www.cswsconsulting.com-Collective Solidarity and Abolition Pledge: http://bit.ly/AsianAbolitionPledge-People's Collective for Justice and Liberation: https://peoplescollective4jl.orgSupport the show (https://ko-fi.com/thrivespice)

Welcome to part two of our podcast highlighting Stroke Awareness Month with Stephanie Tachell.  Today Stephanie shares about her typical day, highlights some resources, speaks about the relationship her son and Lynnex have, and so much more.   TEFRA (Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982):  https://oklahoma.gov/ohca/individuals/programs/tefra-children-overview-care-for-children-with-disabilities.html     #StrokeAwarenessMonth # PerintalStroke #TEFRA #SoonerCare #PrivateDutyNursing #DNR #FamilySupport #YouCanDoIt 

The student loan debt crisis might be the biggest problem facing our nation in the years to come. The total debt sits around $1.6 trillion right now. Several politicians, including Senator Bernie Sanders, have proposed plans to "cancel" student debt, and make all college tuition free.   There are a couple things we need to get out of the way. First off, the government has been involved in the subsidization of student loans since 1958, with the passage of the National Defense Education Act. At that time, the governments involvement was limited to college degrees including science, technology, math, or engineering. It should come as no surprise that it only took 7 years for the feds to decide they needed more than just control over the STEM fields.   In 1965, they passed the Higher Education Act. The stated goal of the HEA was to promote "greater social mobility". The HEA has been the doorway to the federal government's full involvement in college education. At that time, they were able to start subsidizing or guaranteeing all student loans.   The cost of college began to rise with the involvement of government subsidies, as we've seen in most other industries (look at a graph of medical costs following the passage of Medicare). As you would read in Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell, the artificial demand created by government stimulus resulted in a shortage of supply, leading to higher prices. Your high school economics lessons will teach you that creating a virtually unlimited demand will cause higher prices 100% of the time.   Although the cost of degrees were already on the rise, the greatest acceleration happened in 2010, when the government completely took over the student loan process with the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act. That title definitely hits the top 10 most "Ironic Congressional Act" titles in my book. It's right up the with the "Affordable Care Act," and "No Child Left Behind." Up to this point, private institutions were still involved in the lending process, but all loans given by private lenders were guaranteed by the US Government. The housing market crisis comes to mind with that last statement.   In the graphs below, you'll see the massive spike in student loan debt, corresponding with the 2010 year mark- the first year private institutions had been removed from the student loan ma --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/goodmorningliberty/support

Lynn Nichols Federal Tax Update Podcast February, 20 2019, Episode 32 Listen as Lynn Nichols provides commentary on 7 Items pertaining to current developments in U.S. tax law. This week’s topics include: Split Circuit Court Affirms Partnership’s Fee Awards The government can be ordered to pay attorney fees under the qualified offer rule in a partnership proceeding under the 1982 Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act, the Federal Circuit held. [Tax Notes Today; 2/11/2019, Article by Stephanie Cummings]   Federal Circuit Affirms Award of Litigation Costs to Partnership The Federal Circuit affirmed a Court of Federal Claims decision that awarded a partnership litigation costs under section 7430 in its challenge to an untimely notice of final partnership administrative adjustment, holding that the partnership qualified as the prevailing party, that the amount of tax liability was in issue, and that the partnership incurred litigation costs. [BASR Partnership et al. v. U.S.; Fed Cir, No. 17-1925, 2/8/2019]   DOJ Alerts Federal Circuit to Tax Court Order Related to Appeal The government, in its appeal of a Court of Federal Claims decision that awarded litigation costs to a partnership, alerted the Federal Circuit to a recent Tax Court order that disagreed with the Court of Federal Claims and held that the qualified offer rule in section 7430 did not apply in a partnership proceeding because the amount of tax liability was not in issue. [HURFORD INVESTMENTS NO. 2, LTD., HURFORD MANAGEMENT NO. 2, LLC,       Eleventh Circuit Affirms Conviction for Making False Claim to IRS The Eleventh Circuit, in an unpublished per curiam opinion, upheld an individual’s conviction for making a false claim to the IRS and corruptly impeding the administration of the internal revenue laws, finding that there was sufficient evidence that she fraudulently obtained a refund and moved the proceeds to evade detection and recovery by the IRS. [U. S. v. Ingrid McBride Rich; CA 11, No. 17-15767, 2/12/2019]   Florida Tribe Seeks Review of Decision Holding Distributions Taxable The Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida petitioned the Supreme Court for review of an Eleventh Circuit decision that held that distribution payments a tribe member received from the tribe’s gaming activities are not exempt from taxation, arguing that the payments were exempt as Indian general welfare benefits. [Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida v. United States;   CA 11, No. 18-395, 1/7/2019]   IRS Addresses Bonus Depreciation Anomaly for Luxury Autos The IRS has outlined procedures that will allow passenger car owners eligible for bonus depreciation to deduct depreciation during the recovery period that they wouldn’t otherwise have been able to. [Tax Notes Today; 2/14/2019, Article by Emily Foster]   IRS Provides Safe Harbor for Autos Eligible for Bonus Depreciation The IRS has issued guidance (Rev. Proc. 2019-13) providing a safe harbor accounting method for determining depreciation deductions for passenger automobiles that qualify for the 100 percent additional first-year depreciation deduction under section 168(k) and that are subject to the depreciation limitations under section 280F(a). [Rev. Proc. 2019-13; 2019-9 IRB 1, 2/13/2019]   AICPA Seeks Small Business Relief From Tax Shelter Definition The American Institute of CPAs has asked that small businesses meeting specified conditions be excluded from the definition of a tax shelter so that they can obtain the benefits of the simplifying provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. [Letter Re: Small Business Relief from Definition of Tax Shelter, AICPA 2/13/2019]   IRS Now Asking About Negative Partnership Tax Capital Accounts The IRS’s ongoing interest in partners with negative tax basis capital accounts in partnerships has resulted in new instructions for filling out partnership tax returns. [Tax Notes Today; 2/15/2019, Article by Nathan Richman]   Individual Entitled to Alimony Deduction for Arrearages Paid The Tax Court held that an individual was entitled to an alimony deduction for alimony arrearages he paid to his former wife after a state court ordered him to do so or go to jail, finding that the arrearages maintained their character as alimony and were paid under a contempt order, not a money judgment as the IRS claimed. [Jeffrey Siegel; No. 27572-16; T.C. Memo. 2019-11]  

It is conventional wisdom in Alberta that bringing in a sales tax would be political suicide, but there is nothing unusual about sales taxes. They are part of the fiscal fabric everywhere else in Canada, many U.S. states, and throughout Europe. A provincial sales tax of five percent could net Alberta $5 billion yearly and still be one of the lowest taxed provinces. The Alberta Taxpayer Protection Act, introduced by Premier Ralph Klein in 1995, states that a referendum must be held before a Provincial Sales Tax can be introduced. However, previous governments have shown that they have no problem sweeping away old laws like this one. In 2009, the PC government amended their much touted Fiscal Responsibility Act which prohibited deficit budgets in order to pass a deficit budget. What are the sources of opposition in Alberta and what impact would a sales tax have on the politics and finances of the province? The speaker will analyze these questions and assert that relying on a boom-bust economy with a real lack of long-term financial planning has been Alberta's biggest weakness over the past several decades. Speaker: Dr. Trevor Harrison Dr. Trevor Harrison is a Professor of Sociology at the University of Lethbridge and Director of Parkland Institute. He was born and raised in Edmonton. He holds a B.A. from the University of Winnipeg, an M.A. from the University of Calgary, and a Ph.D. in sociology from the University of Alberta. His broad areas of specialty include political sociology, political economy, and public policy. In addition to numerous journal articles and book chapters, Dr. Harrison is the author, co-author, or co-editor of nine books. His op-ed columns frequently appear in both local and national newspapers. Moderator:   Graeme Greenlee Date: Thursday, April 21, 2016 Time: Noon - 1:30 PM (30 minutes each for presentation, lunch and Q & A) Location: Country Kitchen Catering (Lower level of The Keg) 1715 Mayor Magrath Dr. S Cost: $11.00 (includes lunch) or $2.00 (includes coffee/tea)

It is conventional wisdom in Alberta that bringing in a sales tax would be political suicide, but there is nothing unusual about sales taxes. They are part of the fiscal fabric everywhere else in Canada, many U.S. states, and throughout Europe. A provincial sales tax of five percent could net Alberta $5 billion yearly and still be one of the lowest taxed provinces. The Alberta Taxpayer Protection Act, introduced by Premier Ralph Klein in 1995, states that a referendum must be held before a Provincial Sales Tax can be introduced. However, previous governments have shown that they have no problem sweeping away old laws like this one. In 2009, the PC government amended their much touted Fiscal Responsibility Act which prohibited deficit budgets in order to pass a deficit budget. What are the sources of opposition in Alberta and what impact would a sales tax have on the politics and finances of the province? The speaker will analyze these questions and assert that relying on a boom-bust economy with a real lack of long-term financial planning has been Alberta's biggest weakness over the past several decades. Speaker: Dr. Trevor Harrison Dr. Trevor Harrison is a Professor of Sociology at the University of Lethbridge and Director of Parkland Institute. He was born and raised in Edmonton. He holds a B.A. from the University of Winnipeg, an M.A. from the University of Calgary, and a Ph.D. in sociology from the University of Alberta. His broad areas of specialty include political sociology, political economy, and public policy. In addition to numerous journal articles and book chapters, Dr. Harrison is the author, co-author, or co-editor of nine books. His op-ed columns frequently appear in both local and national newspapers. Moderator:   Graeme Greenlee Date: Thursday, April 21, 2016 Time: Noon - 1:30 PM (30 minutes each for presentation, lunch and Q & A) Location: Country Kitchen Catering (Lower level of The Keg) 1715 Mayor Magrath Dr. S Cost: $11.00 (includes lunch) or $2.00 (includes coffee/tea)

It is conventional wisdom in Alberta that bringing in a sales tax would be political suicide, but there is nothing unusual about sales taxes. They are part of the fiscal fabric everywhere else in Canada, many U.S. states, and throughout Europe. A provincial sales tax of five percent could net Alberta $5 billion yearly and still be one of the lowest taxed provinces. The Alberta Taxpayer Protection Act, introduced by Premier Ralph Klein in 1995, states that a referendum must be held before a Provincial Sales Tax can be introduced. However, previous governments have shown that they have no problem sweeping away old laws like this one. In 2009, the PC government amended their much touted Fiscal Responsibility Act which prohibited deficit budgets in order to pass a deficit budget. What are the sources of opposition in Alberta and what impact would a sales tax have on the politics and finances of the province? The speaker will analyze these questions and assert that relying on a boom-bust economy with a real lack of long-term financial planning has been Alberta's biggest weakness over the past several decades. Speaker: Dr. Trevor Harrison Dr. Trevor Harrison is a Professor of Sociology at the University of Lethbridge and Director of Parkland Institute. He was born and raised in Edmonton. He holds a B.A. from the University of Winnipeg, an M.A. from the University of Calgary, and a Ph.D. in sociology from the University of Alberta. His broad areas of specialty include political sociology, political economy, and public policy. In addition to numerous journal articles and book chapters, Dr. Harrison is the author, co-author, or co-editor of nine books. His op-ed columns frequently appear in both local and national newspapers. Moderator:   Graeme Greenlee Date: Thursday, April 21, 2016 Time: Noon - 1:30 PM (30 minutes each for presentation, lunch and Q & A) Location: Country Kitchen Catering (Lower level of The Keg) 1715 Mayor Magrath Dr. S Cost: $11.00 (includes lunch) or $2.00 (includes coffee/tea)

Dr. Patti Peeples is a health economist, pharmaceutical marketer, pharmacist, and entrepreneur with 25 years of experience in the pharma industry. She is Founder and CEO of HealthEconomics.Com, a top-ranked resource portal that serves as the global pharmaceutical and payer industry's CONNECTED COMMUNITYTM for individuals involved in establishing value for healthcare interventions, including those in the health economics, outcomes research, pricing, reimbursement, and market access. Dr. Peeples has served in senior positions in Medical Affairs, Health Outcomes, and Product Management and has worked for major pharma and device organizations including ALZA, Sandoz (now Novartis), and Xcenda. She is on the Board of CreateHealth.io, a digital healthcare customer insight company and is a frequent speaker on digital and marketing communication tools for payers. Peeples is the author of dozens of peer-reviewed publications on the cost-effectiveness of healthcare interventions and patient-reported outcomes, and she holds a PhD in Health Economics, an M.S. in Pharmaceutical Marketing, and a B.S. in Pharmacy. She lives in Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida and is mom to 15-year old twin boys. In her spare time, she is an avid cyclist typically spending weeks on her bike in foreign countries while camping, and she founded an outdoor adventure group for teen-agers to inspire appreciation for nature, community, and connection. Her most important goal is to keep striving for a balanced life. 00:20 What Health Economics is.1:00 Health Economics has more than 10,000 resources.2:25 Patti's unexpected results with Health Economics.2:50 Much of Health Economic's success is due to its “connected community”.3:05 The website's start back in 1993.5:00 How Patti spread the word on the website.5:50 The most important single event to help Health Economics.6:30 Health Economics as the first crowdsource website for Healthcare.7:00 Where cost-cutting falls into the world of Healthcare in Patti's eyes.7:30 The importance of “effectiveness” and “allocation”8:50 The Health Economics move from a “cost-plus” to a “cost-based” reimbursement system.9:30 Issues in the Healthcare world financially, due to the Financial and Fiscal Responsibility Act.12:00 How Health Economics started to spot out these issues so that they could be changed.13:15 “We really treat disease rather than treating the health of the patient.”13:30 The focus of the ‘80's and ‘90's on cost-effectiveness.13:50 The start of the concept of “value” in healthcare.14:30 Patti's definition of “cost-effective.”16:20 “Cost vs. Symptom-free day.”17:30 How does one compare things among different metrics?17:40 The Quality-Adjusted Life Year as a universal measure in healthcare.19:20 A study that showed how funding more cost-effective methods could double the number of lives saved.20:35 Patti's personal story of the dangers of thinking of healthcare in only a cost-effective light.21:40 We don't live in a society where we believe healthcare should be wholly cost-effective or ineffective.23:50 “Orphan Drugs”26:00 How all this information Patti has discussed transforms into a successful marketing product development strategy.28:11 What's fueling the Health Information Technology world.31:00 Pervasive misunderstandings between Pharma and Payers.34:40 “By moral necessity price must reflect worth.”37:00 Ways in which countries that have universal healthcare systems fare better than the healthcare system in America.38:40 How the Affordable Care could reduce costs in time.39:40 How someone can get involved in the Health Economics community.41:00 For additional help you can directly email Patti@healtheconomics.com, look at the resources on the website, or log on to the Health Economics business directory.

A case in which the Court held that, under the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, a court in partnership-level proceedings has the right to consider the applicability of any penalty that relates to the partnership.

Republic Episode 16. In this episode, we return to Colonel Ken Murphy and his son, as the full impact of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2016 hits home.

Republic Episode 13. The House of Representatives prepares to debate the Fiscal Responsibility Act, and Dale Whitt is set to deliver independence petitions to the Capitol. West Virginia responds to the firefight between DHS and the National Guard.