Podcasts about Republican Congress

May 30, 2025#WhatILearnedTodayDownload The Daily MoJo App: HERE"Ep 053025: Freedom Friday: Tata, Elon & Hooters - The Daily MoJo"The content covers a range of topics including the basis of rye bread, a mother's idea, and the cooking process with cheese. It highlights the impact of Elon Musk in government, discusses tariffs under Trump, and critiques judicial appointments. The effects of COVID and long COVID are addressed, along with Hooters' marketing strategies. The analysis includes predictions about the Republican Congress, equity grading in schools, and a humorous look at a 1984 video on emails.Phil Bell - TDM's DC Correspondent  - Joins the program  LIVE to discuss Third Party Legal reform, Elon's departure from DOGE, and the demise of Hooters. All American Talk ShowAllThingsTrainsPhil's YouTube Channel: HEREOur affiliate partners:Take care of your body - it's the only one you'll get and it's your temple! We've partnered with Sugar Creek Goods to help you care for yourself in an all-natural way. And in this case, "all natural" doesn't mean it doesn't work! Save 15% on your order with promo code "DailyMojo" at AllNaturalMoJo.comCBD is almost everywhere you look these days, so the answer isn't so much where can you get it, it's more about - where can you get the CBD products that actually work!? Certainly, NOT at the gas station! Patriots Relief says it all in the name, and you can save an incredible 40% with the promo code "DailyMojo" at GetMoJoCBD.com!Romika Designs is an awesome American small business that specializes in creating laser-engraved gifts and awards for you, your family, and your employees. Want something special for someone special? Find exactly what you want at MoJoLaserPros.com  There have been a lot of imitators, but there's only OG – American Pride Roasters Coffee. It was first and remains the best roaster of fine coffee beans from around the world. You like coffee? You'll love American Pride – from the heart of the heartland – Des Moines, Iowa. AmericanPrideRoasters.com   Find great deals on American-made products at MoJoMyPillow.com. Mike Lindell – a true patriot in our eyes – puts his money where his mouth (and products) is/are. Find tremendous deals at MoJoMyPillow.com – Promo Code: MoJo50  Life gets messy – sometimes really messy. Be ready for the next mess with survival food and tools from My Patriot Supply. A 25 year shelf life and fantastic variety are just the beginning of the long list of reasons to get your emergency rations at PrepareWithMoJo50.comStay ConnectedWATCH The Daily Mojo LIVE 7-9a CT: www.TheDailyMojo.com (RECOMMEDED)Watch:Rumble: HEREFreedomsquare: HEREYouTube: HEREListen:LISTEN: HEREBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-daily-mojo-with-brad-staggs--3085897/support

California's car culture, trucking industry, and weather contribute to chronically bad air that it's been gradually improving with its own laws and regulations and the blessing of the EPA. But now under President Trump, the EPA and Republican Congress are taking away California's ability to clean up its air.  Also, the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" that passed through the House of Representatives on party lines guts multiple provisions from the Inflation Reduction Act, terminating or reducing tax credits for electric vehicles, clean hydrogen and advanced manufacturing.  Plus, at a former gravel mine in northwestern Pennsylvania, nonprofits are working to plant 70,000 trees as part of a larger project to reforest thousands of acres of degraded mine land in the region. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

 Santi: Hi, this is a special episode of Statecraft. I've got a wonderful guest host with me today. Kyla Scanlon: Hey, I'm Kyla Scanlon! I'm the author of a book called In This Economy and an economic commentator. Santi: Kyla has joined me today for a couple reasons. One, I'm a big fan of her newsletter: it's about economics, among many other things. She had a great piece recently on what we can learn from C.S. Lewis's The Screwtape Letters, which is a favorite book of mine.Kyla's also on today because we're interviewing Wally Adeyemo, who was the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury in the Biden administration. We figured we each had questions we wanted answered.Kyla: Yeah, I've had the opportunity to interview Wally a couple times during the Biden administration, and I wanted to see where he thinks things are at now. He played a key role in implementing the Inflation Reduction Act, financial sanctions on Russia, and a whole bunch of other things.Santi: For my part, I'm stuck on Wally's role in setting up the IRS's Direct File program, where you can file your taxes for free directly through the IRS instead of paying TurboTax a hundred bucks to do it. “Good governance types” tend to love Direct File, but the current admin is thinking of killing it. I wanted to understand how the program got rolled out, how Wally would respond to criticisms of the program, and what he learned from building something in government, which now may disappear.Kyla, you've talked to Wally before. How did that conversation go? Kyla: I actually was able to go to his office in D.C., and I talked to a couple of key people in the Biden administration: Jared Bernstein, the former chair of the CEA, and Daniel Hornung, who was at the National Economic Council.We're talking to Wally on the day that the House passed the one big beautiful bill. There's also so much happening financially, like the bond market is totally rebelling against the US government right now. I'm really curious how he thinks things are, as a key player in the last administration.Santi: Wally, you've spent most of your career in Democratic Party institutions. You worked on the Kerry presidential campaign in 2004. You served in the Obama admin. You were the first chief of staff to the CFPB, the president of the Obama Foundation, and, most recently, Deputy Treasury Secretary in the Biden admin.30,000ft question: How do you see the Democratic Party today?My view is that we continue to be the party that cares deeply about working-class people, but we haven't done a good job of communicating that to people, especially when it comes to the things that matter most to them. From my standpoint, it's costs: things in America cost too much for a working-class family.I want to make sure I define working class: I think about people who make under $100,000 a year, many of whom don't own homes on the coast or don't own a significant amount of stocks (which means they haven't seen the asset appreciation that's led to a great deal of wealth creation over the last several decades). When you define it that way, 81% of Americans sit in that category of people. Despite the fact that they've seen their median incomes rise 5-10% over the last five years, they've seen the cost of the things they care about rise even faster.We haven't had a clear-cut agenda focused on the standard of living, which I think is the thing that matters most to Americans today.Santi: There are folks who would say the problem for Democrats wasn't that they couldn't communicate clearly, or that they didn't have a governing agenda, but that they couldn't execute their agenda the way they hoped to in the time available to them. Would you say there's truth to that claim?Most people talk about a communications issue, but I don't think it's a communications issue. There are two issues. One is an implementation issue, and the second is an issue of the actual substance and policy at the Treasury Department. I was the deputy secretary, but I was also the Chief Operating Officer, which meant that I was in charge of execution. The two most significant domestic things I had to execute were the American Rescue Plan, where $1.9 trillion flowed through the Treasury Department, and the Inflation Reduction Act. The challenge with execution in the government is that we don't spend a lot on our systems, on making execution as easy as possible.For example, the Advanced Child Tax Credit was intended to give people money to help with each of their children during the pandemic. What Congress called on us to do was to pay people on a monthly basis. In the IRS system, you pay your taxes mostly on an annual basis, which meant that most of our systems weren't set up to pay a monthly check to Americans. It took us a great deal of work to figure out a way to recreate a system just to do that.We've underinvested in the systems that the IRS works on. The last time we made a significant investment in the IRS's digital infrastructure was the 1960s; before we had an ATM machine, before we sent a man to the moon, before we had a personal computer. So that meant that everything was coded in a language called COBOL.So execution was quite hard in the American Rescue Plan. People were left out and felt that the government wasn't working for them. If you called the IRS, only 13% of your calls were being answered. We got that back up to 85% before we left. Ultimately, I think part of this is an execution challenge. In government we want to spend money coming up with new policies, but we don't want to pay for execution, which then means that when you get the policy passed, implementation isn't great.When Jen Pahlka was on your show, she talked about the need to focus on identifying the enablers to implementation. Direct File was one of the best examples of us taking implementation very seriously.But also, on some policy issues that mattered most to Americans, we weren't advancing the types of strategies that would've helped lower the cost of housing and lowering the cost of medicine. We did some things there, but there's clearly more that we could have done, and more we need to do going forward to demonstrate that we're fighting to bring down those costs. It's everything from permitting reform — not just at the federal level, but what can we do to incentivize it at the state and local level — to thinking about what we can do on drug costs. Why does it cost so much more to get a medicine in America than in Canada? That is something that we can solve. We've just chosen not to at the federal level.At the end of the year, we were going to take action to go after some of the middlemen in the pharmacy industry who were taking out rents and large amounts of money. It dropped out of the bill because of the negotiations between the Republican Congress and then President-elect Trump. But there are a lot of things that we can do both on implementation, which will mean that Americans feel the programs that we're passing in a more effective way, and policy solutions that we need to advance as a party that will help us as well.Kyla: Some people think Americans tend to vote against their own self-interest. How can your party message to people that these sorts of policies are really important for them?Ultimately, what I found is that most people just understand their self-interest differently, and for them, a big part of this was, “Who's fighting for me on the issues that I care most about?”From my standpoint, part of the problem we had with Direct File, which I think was an innovative solution, was that we got to implementing it so late in the administration that we didn't have the ability for it to show the impact. I'm hoping future administrations will think through how to start their implementation journey on things like Direct File sooner in the administration, when you have a great deal of political capital, so people can actually feel the impact over time.To your question, it's not just about the messaging, it's about the messenger. People tend to trust people who look like them, who come from the places they come from. When it came to the Child Tax Credit and also to Direct File, the biggest innovation wasn't the technology: the technology for Direct File has been used by the Australians, the British, and other countries for decades.The biggest innovation was us joining that technology with trusted people in communities who were going out to talk to people about those programs and building those relationships. That was something that the IRS hadn't done a great deal of. We invested a great deal in those community navigators who were helping us get people to trust the things the government was doing again, like the Child Tax Credit, like Direct File, so that they could use it.We often think that Washington is going to be able to give messages to the country that people are going to hear. But we're both in a more complicated media environment, where people are far more skeptical of things that come from people in Washington. So the best people to advocate for and celebrate the things that we're doing are people who are closer to the communities we're trying to reach. In product advertising today, more companies are looking to influencers to advertise things, rather than putting an ad on television, because people trust the people that they follow. The same is true for the things that we do in government.Santi: I've talked to colleagues of yours in the last administration who say things like, “In the White House, we did not have a good enough sense of the shot clock.” They point to various reasons, including COVID, as a reason the admin didn't do a good enough job of prioritization.Do you think that's true, that across the administration, there was a missing sense of the shot clock or a missing sense of prioritization? No, because I'm a Lakers fan. These are professionals. We're professionals. This is not our first rodeo. We know how much time is on the shot clock; we played this game. The challenge wasn't just COVID. For me at Treasury — and I think this is the coolest part of being Deputy Secretary of the Treasury — I had responsibilities domestic and international. As I'm trying to modernize the IRS, to invest all my time in making the system work better for customers and to collect more taxes from the people who owe money, Russia invades Ukraine. I had to turn a bunch of my attention to thinking about what we were going to do there. Then you have Hamas attacking Israel.There was more we should have done on the domestic end, but we have to remember that part of the presidency is: you get to do the things you want to do, but you also have to do the things you have to do. We had a lot of things we had to do that we weren't planning for which required all-of-the-administration responses.I think the most important lesson I've learned about that is that it comes down to both being focused on the things that matter, and being willing to communicate to the American people why your priorities have to change in light of things that happen in the world.But the people I'm sure you've talked to, most of them work on domestic policy alone, and they probably never have been in a National Security Council meeting, where you're thinking about the risks to the country. The president has to do both of those things. So I get how difficult it is to do that, just given where I sat at the Treasury Department.Santi: Looking back from an implementation perspective, are there things you would've done differently during your time at Treasury?The most important thing that I would've done differently was to immediately set up a permanent implementation and delivery unit in the Treasury Department. We always like to pretend like the Treasury Department is just a policy department where we make policy, we collect taxes. But in any crisis the country ever has, a great deal of responsibility — for execution or implementation of whatever the response is — falls to the Treasury Department. Think about the financial crisis, which is clearly something that's in the Treasury's domain. The vast majority of money for COVID flowed through the Treasury Department. You think about the IRA, a climate bill: the vast majority of that money flows through the Treasury Department.And Treasury doesn't have a dedicated staff that's just focused on implementation: How do we do this well? How do we make sure the right people are served? How do we make sure that we communicate this well? We did this to a degree by a team that was focused on the American Rescue Plan. But it was only focused on the American Rescue Plan. If I could start again, I would have said, “I want a permanent implementation structure within the Treasury Department of people who are cross-cutting, who only think about how we execute the policies that we pass through Congress and that we put together through an executive order. How do we do that extremely well?”Kyla: What you're talking about is very people-centric: How do we get an implementation team, and how do we make sure that the right people are doing the right jobs? Now we have DOGE, which is less people-centric. How do you reconcile what Doge is doing relative to what you would've done differently in this role that you had?As you would suspect, I wasn't excited about the fact we had lost the election, but initially I thought DOGE could be helpful with technology. I think marrying technology with people — that's the key to success for the government. We've never really been great at doing technology in the government.Part of the reason for that is a procurement process that is very slow because of how the federal acquisition rules work. What we are trying to do is prevent corruption and also waste, fraud, and abuse. But what that does is, it leads to slowness in our ability to get the technology on board that we need, and in getting the right people.I was hoping DOGE would bring in people who knew a great deal about technology and put us in a position where we could use that to build better products for the American people. I thought they would love Direct File, and that they would find ways to improve Direct File and expand it to more Americans.My view is that any American in the working class or middle class should not have to pay a company to file their taxes. We have the ability in this country, and I think Direct File was proving that. My goal, if we'd had more time, was to expand this to almost any American being able to use it. I thought they'd be able to accelerate that by bringing in the right people, but also the right technology. We were on that path before they took those two things apart.My sense is that you have to reform the way that we hire people because it's too hard to hire the right people. In some cases, you don't need some of the people you have today because technology is going to require different skills to do different things. It's easier to break something, I found, than it is to build something. I think that's what they're finding today as well.Santi: When I talk to left-of-center folks about the DOGE push, they tend to be skeptical about the idea that AI or modern technology can replace existing federal workers. I think some of that is a natural backlash to the extreme partisan coding of DOGE, and the fact that they're firing a lot of people very quickly. But what's your view? After DOGE, what kinds of roles would you like to see automated?Let me say: I disagree with the view that DOGE and technology can't replace some of the things that federal workers do today. My view is that “productivity enhancing” tech — it's not that it is going to make employees who are currently doing the job more productive. It is going to mean you need fewer employees. We have to be honest about that.Go to the IRS, for example. When I got there, we had a huge paper backlog at the IRS because, despite what most people think, millions of people still file their taxes by paper, and they send them to the IRS. And during the pandemic, the commissioner, who was then working for President Trump, decided to shut down the IRS for public health reasons — to make sure employees did not have to risk getting COVID.There were piles of paper backing up, so much so that they had filled cafeterias at the IRS facilities with huge piles of paper. The problem, of course, is that, unlike modern systems, you could not just machine-read those papers and put them into our systems. Much of that required humans to code those papers into the system by hand. There is no need in the 21st century for that to happen, so one of the things that we started to do was introduce this simple thing called scanning, where you would scan the papers — I know it sounds like a novel idea. That would help you get people's tax returns faster into the system, but also get checks out quickly, and allow us to see if people are underpaying their taxes, because we can use that data with a modern system. But over time, what would that mean? We'd need fewer people to enter the data from those forms.When we get money for the IRS from Congress, it is actually seen as revenue-raising because they expect it to bring down the debt and deficit, which is completely true. But the model Congress uses to do that is reliant on the number of full-time employees we hire. One challenge we have with the IRS — and in government systems in general — is that you don't get credit for technology investments that should improve your return on investment.So whenever we did the ROI calculations for the IRS, the Congressional Budget Office would calculate how much revenue we'd bring in, and it was always based on the number of people you had doing enforcement work that would lead to certain dollars coming in. So we got no credit for the technology investments. Which was absolutely the opposite of what we knew would be true: the more you invested in technology, the more likely you were to bring in more revenue, and you would be able to cut the cost of employees.Santi: If the CBO changed the way it scored technology improvements, would more Congresspeople be interested in funding technology?It is just a CBO issue. It's one we've tried to talk to them about over the last several years, but one where they've been unwilling to move. My view is that unlocking this will unlock greater investment in technology in a place like the IRS, because every dollar you invest in technology — I think — would earn back $10 in additional tax revenue we'd be able to collect from people who are skipping out on their taxes today. It's far more valuable to invest in that technology than to grow the number of employees working in enforcement at the IRS. You need both, but you can't say that a person is worth 5x their salary in revenue and that technology is worth 0. That makes no sense.Kyla: When we spoke about Direct File many months ago, people in my comment section were super excited and saying things like, “I just want the government to tell me how much money I owe.” When you think about the implementation of Direct File, what went right, and how do you think it has evolved?The thing that went right was that we proved that we could build something quite easily, and we built it ourselves, unlike many technology projects in government. We didn't go out and hire a bunch of consultants and contractors to do it. We did it with people at the IRS, but also with people from 18F and from GSA who worked in the government. We did it in partnership with a number of stakeholders outside the government who gave us advice, but the build was done by us.The reason that was important — and the reason it's important to build more things internally rather than hiring consulting firms or other people to build it — is that you then have the intellectual capital from building that, and that can be used to build other things. This was one product, but my view is that I want the IRS home page to one day look a lot more like the screen on your iPhone, so that you can click on the app on the IRS homepage that can help you, depending on what you need — if it's a Direct File, or if it's a tax transcript.By building Direct File internally, we were getting closer to that, and the user scores on the effectiveness of the tool and the ability to use it were through the roof. Even for a private sector company, it would've been seen as a great success. In the first year, we launched late in the filing season, mostly just to test the product, but also to build stakeholder support for it. In the limited release, 140,000 people used it. The average user said that before Direct File, it took them about 13 hours to file their taxes, and with Direct File, it took them just over an hour to file their taxes.But you also have to think about how much money the average American spends filing their taxes: about $200. That's $200 that a family making under $100,000 could invest in their kids, in paying some bills, rather than in filing their taxes.Even this year, with no advertising by the Trump administration of Direct File, we had more than 300,000 people use it. The user scores for the product were above 85%. The challenge, of course, is that instead of DOGE investing in improving the product — which was a place where you could have seen real intellectual capital go to work and make something that works for all Americans — they've decided to discontinue Direct File. [NB: There has been widespread reporting that the administration plans to discontinue Direct File. The GOP tax bill passed by the House would end Direct File if it becomes law. At the time of publication, the Direct File has not been discontinued.]The sad part is that when you think about where we are as a country, this is a tool that could both save people money, save people time, improve our ability to collect taxes, and is something that exists in almost every other developed economy. It makes no sense to me why you would end something like this rather than continue to develop it.Santi: People remember the failure of healthcare.gov, which crashed when it was rolled out all at once to everyone in the country. It was an embarrassing episode for the Obama administration, and political actors in that administration learned they had to pilot things and roll them out in phases.Is there a tension between that instinct — to test things slowly, to roll them out to a select group of users, and then to add users in following cycles — Is there a tension between that and trying to implement quickly, so that people see the benefit of the work you're doing?One of my bosses in the Obama administration was Jeff Zients, the person who was brought in to fix healthcare.gov. He relentlessly focused on execution. He always made the point that it's easy to come up with a strategy to some degree: you can figure out what the policy solution is. But the difference between good and great is how you execute against it. I think there is some tension there, but not as much as you would think.Once we were able to show that the pilot was a success, I got invited to states all over the country, like Maryland, to announce that they were joining Direct File the next year. These members of Congress wanted to do Direct File events telling people in their state, “This product that's worked so well elsewhere is coming to us next.” It gave us the ability to celebrate the success.I learned the lesson not just from Zients, but also from then-professor Elizabeth Warren, whom I worked for as chief of staff at the CFPB. One challenge we had at the CFPB was to build a complaint hotline, at that point mostly phone-operated, for people who were suffering. They said it would take us at least a year to build out all the product functions we need. We decided to take a modular approach and say, “How long would it take for us to build the system for one product? Let's try that and see how that works. We'll do a test.”It was successful, and we were able to use that to tell the story about the CFPB and what it would do, not just for mortgages, but for all these other products. We built user interest in the complaint hotline, in a way that we couldn't have if we'd waited to build the whole thing at once. While I think you're right that there is some tension between getting everyone to feel it right away and piloting; if the pilot is successful, it also gives you the opportunity to go out and sell this thing to people and say, “Here's what people who did the pilot are saying about this product.”I remember someone in Texas who was willing to do a direct-to-camera and talk about the ways that Direct File was so easy for them to use. It gets back to my point on message and messenger. Deputy Secretary Adeyemo telling you about this great thing the government did is one thing. But an American who looks like you, who's a nurse, who's a mom of two kids, telling you that this product actually worked for her: That's something that more people identify with.Healthcare.gov taught us the lesson of piloting and doing things in a modular way. This is what companies have been doing for decades. If it's worked for them, I think it can work for the government too.Santi: I'm a fan of Direct File, personally. I don't want this administration to kill it. But I was looking through some of the criticism that Direct File got: for instance, there's criticism about it rivaling the IRS Free File program, which is another IRS program that partners with nonprofits to help some folks file their taxes for free.Then there's this broader philosophical criticism: “I don't want the feds telling me how much I owe them.” The idea is that the government is incentivized to squeeze every last dollar out of you.I'm curious what you make of that, in part because I spoke recently to an American who worked on building e-government systems for Estonia. One of the things that has allowed Estonia to build cutting-edge digital systems in the government is that Estonia is a small and very high-trust society. Everybody's one degree of separation from everybody else.We're a much bigger and more diverse country. How do you think that affects the federal government's ability to build tools like Direct File?I think it affects it a lot, and it gets back to my point: not just the message but the messenger. I saw this not just with Direct File, but with the Advanced Child Tax Credit, which was intended to help kids who were living in poverty, but also families overall. What we found initially in the data was that, among families that didn't have to file taxes because they made too little, many of them were unwilling to take advantage of Direct File and the Advanced Child Tax Credit because they couldn't believe the government was doing something to just help them. I spent a lot of time with priests, pastors, and other community leaders in many of the communities where people were under-filing to try and get them to talk about this program and why it was something that they should apply for.One of the challenges we suffer from right now in America, overall, is a lack of trust in institutions. You have to really go local and try to rebuild that trust.That also speaks to taking a pilot approach that goes slower in some cases. Some of the criticism we got was, “Why don't you just fill out this form for us and then just send it to us, so that Direct File is just me pressing a button so I can pay my taxes?”Part of the challenge for us in doing that is a technology challenge: we are not there technologically. But the other problem is a trust problem. If I were to just fill out your taxes for you and send them to you, I think people, at this stage, would distrust the government and distrust the technology.Direct File had to be on a journey with people, showing people, “If I put in this information, it accurately sends me back my check.” As people develop more trust, we can also add more features to it that I think people will trust. But the key has to be: how do you earn that trust over time?We can't expect that if we put out a product that looks like something the Estonian government or Australia would put out, that people would trust it at this point. We have to realize that we are on a journey to regain the trust of the American people.The government can and will work for them, and Direct File was a part of that. We started to demonstrate that with that product because the people who used it in these communities became the spokespeople for it in a better way than I ever could be, than the Secretary or the President could be.Everyone knows that they need to pay their taxes because it's part of their responsibility living in this country. The things that make people the most upset is the fact that there are people who don't pay their taxes. We committed that we were going to go after them.The second frustration was: “Why do you make it so hard for me to pay my taxes? Why can't I get through to you on the phone line? Why do I have to pay somebody else to do my taxes?” Our goal was to solve those two problems by investing money and going after the people who just decided they weren't going to pay, but also by making it as easy as possible for you to pay your taxes and for most people, to get that tax refund as quickly as possible.But doing that was about going on a journey with people, about regaining their trust in an institution that mattered to them a great deal because 90 something-percent of the money that funds our government comes in through the IRS.Kyla: You have a piece out in Foreign Affairs called “Make Moscow Pay,” and what I found most interesting about that essay is that you said Europe needs to step it up because the United States won't. Talk through the role of Treasury in financial sanctions, and your reasons for writing this piece.People often think about the Treasury Department as doing a few things. One is working with Wall Street; another one is collecting your taxes. Most people don't think about the fact that the Treasury Department is a major part of the National Security Committee, because we have these tools called financial sections.They use the power of the dollar to try and change the behavior of foreign actors who are taking steps that aren't consistent with our national security interests. A great example of this is what we did with regard to Russia — saying that we're going to cut off Russian banks from the US financial system, which means that you can't transact in US dollars.The problem for any bank that can transact in dollars is that the backbone of most of the financial world is built on the US dollar. It increases their cost, it makes it more difficult for them to transact, and makes it harder for them to be part of the global economy, nearly impossible.And that's what we've done in lots of cases when it comes to Russia. We have financial sanction programs that touch all over the world, from Venezuela to Afghanistan. The US government, since 9/11, has used sanctions as one of its primary tools of impacting foreign policy. Some of them have gone well, some of them I think haven't gone as well, and there's a need for us to think through how we use those policies.Santi: What makes sanctions an effective tool? Positions on sanctions don't line up neatly on partisan lines. Sanctions have a mixed track record, and you'll have Republicans who say sanctions have failed, and you'll have Democrats say sanctions have been an effective tool, and vice versa.The way I think about sanctions is that they are intended to bring change, and the only way that they work is that they're part of an overarching foreign policy strategy. That type of behavior change was what we saw when Iran came to the table and wanted to negotiate a way to reduce sanctions in exchange for limits on their nuclear program. That's the type of behavior change we're trying to accomplish with sanctions, but you can't do it with sanctions alone. You need a foreign policy strategy. We didn't do it by the United States confronting Iran; we got our allies and partners to work together with us. When I came into office in 2021, Secretary Yellen asked me to do a review of our sanctions policies — what's worked, what hasn't — because it had been 20 years since the 9/11 attacks.And the most important lesson I learned was that the sanctions programs that were the most effective were the ones we did on a multilateral basis — so we did it with our friends and allies. Part of the reason for this is that while the dollar is the most dominant currency around the world, oftentimes if you can't do something in dollars, you do it in a euro, or you do it in a Japanese yen, or pound sterling.The benefit of having allies all over the world is that the dominant, convertible currencies in the world are controlled by allies and partners. When we acted together with them, we were more effective in curtailing the economic activity of our adversary, and our pressure is more likely to lead to them changing their behavior.We had to be very cautious about collateral damage. You might be targeting an individual, but by targeting that individual, you might make it harder for a company they're affiliated with to continue doing business, or for a country that they're in to get access to banking services. Let's say that you're a huge bank in America, and you're worried about sanctions risk in a small country where you do little business. Why not pull out, rather than having to put in place a huge compliance program? One of the challenges that we have is that the people who make the decisions about whether to extend sanctions don't necessarily spend a lot of time thinking about some of these economic consequences of the sanctions approach.Whenever I was around the table and we were making a decision about using weapons, there was a process that was very elaborate that ended up with something going to the president. You'd often think about kinetic force very seriously, because you were going to have to get the president to make a decision. We didn't always take that kind of rigor when it came to thinking about using our sanctions policy, but the impact on the lives of people in these countries was just as significant for their access to not only money, but to food and to the resources they needed to live.Santi: What do you make of the effectiveness of the initial sanctions on Russia after the invasion of Ukraine? I've heard mixed reviews from folks inside and outside the Biden administration.Sanctions, again, to my point, are only a tool. They've had to be part of a larger strategy, and I think those sanctions were quite effective. I think the saving grace for the Russians has been the fact that China has largely been able and willing to give them access to the things they need to continue to perpetuate.There was a choice for Ukraine, but when you think about Russia's economy today vs. Russia's economy before the sanctions were put in place, it's vastly different. Inflation in Russia still runs far higher than inflation anywhere else in the world. If you were a Russian citizen, you would feel the impacts of sanctions.The challenge, of course, is that it hasn't changed Vladimir Putin's behavior or the behavior of the Kremlin, largely because they've had access to the goods and supplies they need from China, Iran, and North Korea. But over time, it means Russia's economy is becoming less competitive. They have less access to resources; they're going to struggle.I think everyone hoped that sanctions would immediately change the calculus of the Kremlin, but we've never seen that to be the case. When sanctions are effective, they take time, because the economic consequences continue to compound over time, and they have to be part of a larger strategy for the behavior of the individual. That's why I wrote the article, because while the Kremlin and Russia are under pressure, their view is that ultimately the West is going to get tired of supporting Ukraine, financially and politically, because the economic consequences for us — while not as significant as for Moscow or for Kiev — have been quite significant, when you think about the cost of living issues in Europe.I think it's important to write this now, when it appears that Russia is stalling on negotiations, because ultimately, US financial support is waning. We just know that the Trump administration is not willing to put more money into Ukraine, so Europe is going to have to do more, at a time when their economic situation is quite complicated as well.They've got a lot to do to build up their economy and their military-industrial base. Asking them to also increase their support for Ukraine at the same time is going to be quite difficult. So using this money that Russia owes to Ukraine — because they owe them compensation at this moment — can be quite influential in helping support the Ukrainians, but also changing Russia's calculus with regard to the ability of Ukraine to sustain itself.Kyla: On CNBC about a month ago, you said if we ever have a recession over the next couple of months or so, it would be a self-inflicted one. Do you still resonate with that idea? To build on the point I was making, the economy has done quite well over the course of the first few months of the year, largely because of the strength of the consumer, where our balance sheets are still quite strong. Companies in America have done well. The biggest headwind the US economy faces has been self-inflicted by the tariffs the president has put on. Part of what I still do is talk to CEOs of companies, big and small. Small businesses feel the impact of this even more than the big businesses. What they tell me is that it's not just the tariffs and the fact that they are making it more expensive for them to get the goods that they need, but it's the uncertainty created by the off-again, on-again, nature of those tariffs that makes it impossible for them to plan for what supplies they're going to get the next quarter. How are they going to fulfill their orders? What employees are they going to need? It's having a real impact on the performance of these companies, but also their ability to hire people and plan for the future.If you go to the grocery store, you're going to start seeing — and you're starting to see already — price increases. The thing that Americans care most about is, the cost of living is just too high. You're at the grocery store, as you're shopping for your kids for the summer, you're going to see costs go up because of a self-imposed tax we've put in place. So I still do think that if we do find ourselves in a recession, it's going to be because of the tariffs we've put in place.Even if we don't enter a technical recession, what we're seeing now is that those tariffs are going to raise the cost for people when they go out to buy things. It's going to raise the cost of building homes, which is going to make it harder for people to get houses, which is ultimately going to have an impact on the economy that isn't what I think the president or anyone wants at this point.Kyla: Is there anything else we haven't asked about? I think the place where we continue, as a country, to struggle is that, given the federal system we have, many of these problems aren't just in Washington — they're in state and local governments as well. When you think about the challenges to building more housing in this country, you can't just solve it by doing things at the federal level. You have to get state and local governments unified in taking a proactive approach. Part of this has to be not just financial or regulatory from the federal government, but we have to do more things that force state and local governments to get out of the way of people being able to build more housing. I think that the conversations that you've had on your show, and the conversations we're having in government, need to move past our regular policy conversations of: “Should we do more on LIHTC? Should we try to fix NEPA?” Those, to me, are table stakes, and we're in the middle of what I'd say is a generational crisis when it comes to housing. We have to be willing to treat it like a crisis, rather than what I think we've done so far, which is take incremental steps at different levels to try and solve this. That's one thing that I wanted to make sure that I said, because I think it's the most important thing that we can do at the moment.Kyla: Absolutely. During your time there, the Treasury was doing so much with zoning reform, with financial incentives. What I really liked about our last conversation was how much you talked about how important it is that workers can live close to work. Are you optimistic that we will be able to address the problem, or do you think we are sinking into quicksand?I'd say a little bit of both, and the thing that I'm doing now is getting hyperlocal. One of the projects I'm working on in my post-administration life is I'm working with 15 churches in D.C., where they have vacant land and want to use it to build affordable housing as quickly as possible.I'm learning that even when you have the land donated for free and you're willing to work as quickly as possible, it's still quite hard because you have regulations and financial issues that often get in the way of building things. Part of what we have to do now is just launch as many natural experiments as possible to see what works.What I've learned already from this lived experience is that even cities that are trying to get out of the way and make it easier to build housing struggle because of what you all know to be true, which is that the local politics of this is quite complicated. Oftentimes, the way that you get them over the line is by creating incentives or disincentives.In the past, I talked a lot about incentives in terms of “giving people money to do things.” I'm now in favor of “not giving money to people who don't do things” — if you don't take steps to fix your zoning, some of the federal money that you regularly get is not coming to your jurisdiction. I'm going to reallocate that money to places that are doing this activity. I think we have to take those types of radical steps.It's similar to what we did with the Emergency Rental Assistance Program, where if you didn't spend your money, we could take your money back and reallocate it to people who were giving away emergency rental assistance money.That motivates people a lot — when they feel like something's going to be taken away from them. I'm of the view that we have to find more radical things that we can do to get housing built. If we don't, costs will continue to rise faster than people's incomes.Santi: Wally, I have to ask after that point you just made: did you read the paper by my colleague Chris Elmendorf on using LIHTC funds? The idea is to re-allocate those federal funds away from big, expensive cities and into other places in a state, if the cities don't commit to basic zoning reforms.I completely agree with him, and I think I would go even further than just LIHTC money. I would reallocate non-housing money as well, because from my standpoint, if you think about the most important issue for a family, it's being able to find housing that is affordable near their place of work and where their kids go to school. I said that on purpose. I didn't say “affordable housing.” I said “housing that is affordable,” because affordable housing is, in lots of ways, targeted towards a population of people who need it the most. But for even people who are middle income in this country, it crowds out their ability to pay for other things when housing costs continue to creep higher.The only way we solve that problem is if you get rid of restrictive zoning covenants and fix permitting. The natural thing that every city and state is thinking about right now is throwing more money at the problem. There's going to need to be money here, just in light of some of the headwinds, but it's going to be more costly and less effective if we don't fix the underlying issues that are making it hard to build housing where we want it.Right now in California, we're having a huge debate over what we do with infill housing in urban areas. A simple solution — you don't have to do another environmental review if one was already done in this area— is taking months to work through the California legislature, which demonstrates that we're going too slow. California's seeing an exodus of people. I just talked to a CEO who said, “I'm moving my business because the people who work for me can't afford to live in California anymore.” This is the kind of problem that you can solve. State legislatures, Congress, and executives have to get together and take some radical steps to make it easier to build housing.I appreciate what you said about what we were doing at Treasury, but from my standpoint, I wish we had done more earlier to focus on this issue. We had a lot going on, but fundamentally, the most important thing on housing is taking a step to try and build housing today, which is going to have an impact on the economy 10, 20, 30 years from now. We just have to start doing that as soon as possible.Thanks to Emma Hilbert for her transcript and audio edits. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

About the Guest(s): Willie Lawson is a dedicated media personality and the host of "THE MORNING REPORT" produced by Fightbackmedia.com and FightbackMediaTV.com. With a passion for political discourse and constitutional rights, Lawson has carved out a niche presenting nuanced, thought-provoking conversations surrounding constitutional law, immigration, and national politics. His work is aimed at providing insightful dialogue on preserving the American republic, balancing legal frameworks with political realities, and encouraging civic engagement. Episode Summary: Join Willie Lawson on this riveting episode of "THE MORNING REPORT," where the intricate balances of constitutional law, immigration, and national security collide. At the heart of this discussion is the controversial concept of suspending habeas corpus, a critical constitutional right that allows individuals to challenge unlawful detention. As global political dynamics shift, Lawson unpacks the profound implications of using such an extreme measure in the context of immigration and national sovereignty. In a detailed dissection, Lawson explores whether current immigration scenarios could justify the suspension of habeas corpus, a move rarely seen in American history. With references to historical precedents like Lincoln's Civil War suspension and the ongoing migrant crisis, Lawson examines the constitutional provisions that might allow such a policy shift. His analysis foregrounds the pivotal role of Congress vs. presidential powers in making these decisions. Lawson emphasizes the weight of the Republican Congress's alignment with executive intentions, and the legal challenges that could arise from defining "invasion" in modern terms. Tackling weighty topics, Lawson calls his audience to consider constitutional purity in the face of contemporary political pressures. Key Takeaways:Habeas corpus is a fundamental legal right allowing people to challenge unlawful detention in court, which is foundational for liberty and accountability in government.Historically, habeas corpus has been suspended in extreme scenarios involving rebellion or invasion, emphasizing why any such modern use requires careful scrutiny.The debate on immigration as an "invasion" highlights the need for aligning political rhetoric with constitutional law and historical context.Achieving policy changes necessitates Congress's cooperation, underscoring the critical nature of balancing executive reach and legislative authority.Lawson warns of the slippery slope that comes from undermining habeas corpus, advocating for constitutional fidelity to preserve democratic principles.Notable Quotes:"It's about the Constitution, it's about the country. It's about the Republic.""Habeas corpus is not just about law. It's about power.""If we lose the right to challenge detention, the government gains the right to detain without challenge.""That same bat that you use to bludgeon your opponent will be that same bat that you get bludgeoned by.""We have to be really, really careful, right? So Congress has got to play along."Resources:Fightbackmedia.comMammoth NationSeven Weeks Coffee promotional discussionHistorical references to previous suspensions of habeas corpus during key conflicts (i.e., Civil War and Pearl Harbor)By diving deep into the dynamics of habeas corpus and its historical application, listeners are invited to ponder the legal and ethical ramifications of current policy debates. Engage with the full episode for a comprehensive understanding of these constitutional issues and for more thought-provoking content on national governance from "THE MORNING REPORT." Stay tuned for future episodes exploring America's crucial political conversations.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/morning-report--3694168/support.

Missouri US Congressman Eric Burlison joined Newstalk KZRG to discuss Congress' lack of results, a proposed $20 tax on all cars in this country, and the US budget. Join Ted, Steve, and Lucas for the KZRG Morning Newswatch!

During the first 100 days of his second term in office, US President Donald Trump has issued a series of executive orders that have unsettled the commodities market and prompted investors to hold off from making new investments in African economies. In the last three months, Trump has presented the world with “a ding-dong of measures and counter-measures," as Nigerian finance analyst Gbolahan Olojede put it.With such measures including increased tariffs on US imports from African nations (as elsewhere), this new regime has effectively called into question the future validity of preferential trade agreements with African states – such as the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which allows duty-free access, under strict conditions, to the US market for African goods."The reciprocal tariffs effectively nullify the preferences that sub-Saharan Africa countries enjoy under AGOA," South Africa's foreign and trade ministers said in a joint statement on 4 April.Jon Marks, editorial director of energy consultancy and news service African Energy, echoed this climate of uncertainty: “With the Trump presidency lurching from policy to policy, no one knows where they are. And it's very difficult to actually see order within this chaos."Africa braces for economic hit as Trump's tariffs end US trade perksHe told RFI he expects long periods of stasis, in which nothing actually happens, when people have been expecting immediate action.“That's going to be, I think, devastating for markets, devastating for investment. The outlook really is grim," he added.CommoditiesIn 2024, US exports to Africa were worth $32.1 billion. The US imported $39.5 billion worth of goods from Africa, the bulk of these being commodities such as oil and gas, as well as rare minerals including lithium, copper and cobalt.“The focus of the Trump administration is on critical minerals now, particularly in the [Democratic Republic of Congo], which is the Saudi Arabia of cobalt,” said Eric Olander, editor-in-chief of the China Global South Project news site.The US is aiming to build non-Chinese supply chains for its military technology.“The F-35s, supersonic fighter jets, need cobalt. When they look at critical minerals, they're not looking at that for renewable energy. They're looking at it specifically for weapons and for their defence infrastructure,” Olander explained.Collateral damageOn 2 April, President Trump unveiled sweeping tariffs on US imports worldwide, declaring that the US “has been looted, pillaged, raped and plundered by nations near and far” and calling this date a “Liberation Day” which will make “America wealthy again”.Stock markets immediately plummeted as a result of his announcement.On 9 April, Trump announced a 90-day pause – until mid-July – on these tariffs. Instead, a flat 10 percent rate will be applied on exports to the US.The exception was China, whose goods face even higher tariffs – 145 percent on most Chinese goods. Beijing retaliated with 125 percent levies on US imports.According to Olander, most African nations have so far been “insulated from the harsh impact of these tariffs” and from the consequences of what is, in effect, a trade war between two economic giants – China and the US.“South Africa, which accounts for a considerable amount of Africa's trade with the United States, is much more exposed to the effects of these tariffs than the rest of the continent,” he said.Africa FirstBut what if Trump's "America First" agenda was to be copied, asks Kelvin Lewis, editor of the Awoko newspaper in Sierra Leone.“Just like Trump is saying America First, we should think Sierra Leone First,” he told RFI. “He is teaching everyone how to be patriotic. We have no reason to depend on other people, to go cap in hand begging, because we have enough natural resources to feed and house all 9 million of us Sierra Leoneans.”He added: “If Africa says we close shop and we use our own resources for our benefit like Trump is telling Americans, I think the rest of the world would stand up and take notice.”Meanwhile, Trump believes his imposition of these increased tariffs has succeeded in bringing countries to the negotiating table.“I'm telling you, these countries are calling us up, kissing my ass. They are dying to make a deal. Please, please sir, make a deal. I'll do anything. I'll do anything, sir,” Trump said on 8 April at a Republican Congress committee dinner in Washington.New marketsOlander believes that the trade war instigated by Trump has resulted in more risks than opportunities for Africa's vulnerable countries.“But, there is a lot more activity now diplomatically between African countries and other non-US countries,” he added.“Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed from Ethiopia was in Vietnam, as was Burundi's president. There's more engagement between Uganda and Indonesia, more trade activity and discussions between Brazil and Africa.”Foreign ministers from the BRICS group (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) met in Rio de Janeiro on 28 April to coordinate their response to Trump's trade policy.However, securing markets for non-US exports is a challenging task. It took Kenya 10 years “of steady diplomacy” to get China to fund the extension of the Standard Gauge Railway to the Ugandan border, according to Olander.Kenyan president visits China as country pivots away from the US“Whether it's in China, Indonesia, Brazil or elsewhere, it takes time. Exporting into developed G7 markets means facing an enormous number of hurdles, like agricultural restrictions,” he continued. “Then, in the global south, Angola is not going to sell bananas to Brazil, right?”“Trump's trade policies have actually been to depress the oil price,” said Marks. “The price has been under the psychologically low threshold of $70 a barrel.He explains it is because of the demand destruction Trump's policies have placed on global trading.Demand destruction means that people are not investing, “ Marks said. “It's really a period of wait-and-see.”“This will affect prices very profoundly. One of the ironies is that although a lower dollar means that African economies should be able to export their goods for more money, a declining dollar amidst market uncertainties means that investors are not going to be rushing to come into Africa.”

President Donald announces National Security Adviser Mike Waltz will leave that position and be nominated as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and Secretary of State Marco Rubio will take on the second job of National Security Adviser; General Motors estimates tariffs will cause a $5 billion loss in profits; President Trump speaks at a National Day of Prayer observance in the White House Rose Garden, taking time, as well, for an update on the tax cut, spending cut, border security "budget reconciliation bill" being finalized by the Republican Congress; former Vice President Kamala Harris criticizes the Trump Administration's first 100 days in a speech in San Francisco. On tariffs, she says the president is “clearly inviting a recession"; Senate Democrats plan to force a vote to require a human rights report on El Salvador, latest move in their effort to have Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was deported to an El Salvadorian prison, returned to the U.S.; Transportation Sec Sean Duffy outlined steps to increase the number of air traffic controllers. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The first 100 days of President Donald Trump's second term might be the most tumultuous first 100 days of any president. He certainly came in prepared to move his agenda forward, no matter what barriers to it existed. We don't usually discuss presidential politics, but President Trump has released a blizzard of executive orders and directives touching all corners of the federal government, including the National Park Service. What we have seen so far is the loss of perhaps 2,500 Park Service employees, and along with them some crucial institutional knowledge. Any day we expect to hear of a further reduction in force of the Park Service. The president and the Republican Congress have also taken aim at environmental laws and regulations, determined it seems to weaken the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, among others, and there's been talk about selling off federal lands.  And, of course, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum has made it clear he wants to see more coal mined and more oil and gas reserves tapped. The administration also is taking aim at agency responses to climate change, and the president has ordered the militarization of federal lands – including national park lands – along the country's southern border with Mexico. To get a take on what's going on and what the impacts might be, we're joined today by U.S. Rep. Jared Huffman, the ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee.

Stigall was invited to the White House as they celebrate their first 100 days in office. You'll hear conversations with White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt as well as the Director of the National Economic Council of the United States Kevin Hassett. Great perspective on the markets, the border, men in women's sports, the courts, the interaction between the President and members of his team and much more! Plus, Erin Maguire - one of the nation's best Republican strategists and commentators joins Stigall in his D.C. studio for analysis of the bonkers Democrat messaging and where does she see this Republican Congress headed on on big, beautiful bill and their prospects of maintaining control next fall. And will SCOTUS side with parents who want to opt out of their public school's mandatory LGBTQ reading programs? Landmark Legal's Michael O'Neill weighs in on this as well as what to do about the lawfare coming from Democrat district judges from around the country. -For more info visit the official website: https://chrisstigall.comInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/chrisstigallshow/Twitter: https://twitter.com/ChrisStigallFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/chris.stigall/Listen on Spotify: https://tinyurl.com/StigallPodListen on Apple Podcasts: https://bit.ly/StigallShow -Help protect your wealth with real, physical gold and silver. Texas Bullion Exchange helps everyday Americans diversify with tailored portfolios, IRA rollovers, and expert support every step of the way.

On today's newscast: Funding and staff cuts at a federal agency that provides grants to libraries across the country has raised concerns for local libraries; Colorado's state treasurer Dave Young, a Democrat, is speaking out against potential deep Medicaid cuts from the Republican Congress; and The Bureau of Land Management plans to remove all wild horses from a large section of southwest Wyoming. Tune in for these stories and more.

With a Republican Congress bending to Trump's every whim, the judicial branch is the last check on his power—and now he, Elon, and the MAGA regime have decided to wage war against it. Meanwhile, Trump wants to ax the Department of Education and is going after colleges he doesn't like. Jon and Dan break down Trump's latest (probably illegal) moves, check in with the DOGE-bags, and dig into Trump's broader effort to dismantle the federal government. Then they dive into a new 2024 post-mortem from Blue Rose Research, revealing who voted—and why.

Episode 19 of Fragile Juggernaut weighs up the results of the struggle for hegemony in the 1945-1946 strike wave over the next several years. While millions of workers participated in militant actions, their strikes were uncoordinated and politically isolated, opening the way for the political right to organize a backlash and recapture Congress in the midterm elections. At the center of the agenda of the new Republican Congress: labor law reform, codified in the form of the notorious 1947 Taft-Hartley Act. We dive into the details and consequences of the law, restraining workers' right to organize and, most significantly, driving a wedge between the left wing of the CIO and the rest of the federation.Featured music: The OPA Shout (Pete Seeger); The Same Old Merry Go-Round (Oscar Brand); Taft-Hartley Blues (unidentified); The New Walls of Jericho (Richard Huey and Chorus); The Peekskill Story (The Weavers).Fragile Juggernaut is a Haymarket Originals podcast exploring the history, politics, and strategic lessons of the Congress of Industrial Organizations and the rank and file insurgency that produced it. Support Fragile Juggernaut on Patreon and receive our exclusive bimonthly newsletter, full of additional insights, reading recommendations, and archival materials we've amassed along the way. Support us on patreon: https://www.patreon.com/FragileJuggernaut/postsBuy Set the Earth on Fire: The Great Anthracite Coal Strike of 1902 and the Birth of the Police: https://www.haymarketbooks.org/books/2220-set-the-earth-on-fire

It's another day in the Golden Age, and the Democrats' losing streak continues as we witness more insanity from activist judges. Most recently, an Obama-appointed judge ordered planes carrying illegal migrant gang members to turn around midflight, an absurd decision that has led to articles of impeachment being filed. This rogue judge's blatant overreach has sparked outrage, and now Congressman Brandon Gill is pushing back. I'll break down the latest in this battle, from Trump's response to judicial overreach, to how the Republican Congress is backing him up. With the Supreme Court dragging its feet, Trump has a green light to keep pushing back against these ridiculous rulings — and the fight for common sense continues.In the second part of this episode, Randi Weingarten is back on MSNBC, panicking over massive cuts to the Department of Education, where nearly half of its workforce has been removed. These cuts are a direct response to the Department's failure to uphold educational standards, with schools increasingly pushing radical ideologies instead of foundational knowledge. Parents are outraged as their children fall behind in education, while the department's bloated budget continues to fund wasteful spending. The Trump administration is taking action to root out "wokeness" in education. Ben Merkle, president of New Saint Andrews College, joins to discuss the battle against this educational corruption and the importance of returning to a curriculum based on truth, goodness, and beauty. Check out NSA here! https://nsa.edu/donate. They have an amazing mission and provide a solution to the wokeness in higher education, equipping students with useful skills and knowledge.--If you need help getting back on track and could use relief, let the mortgage consultants at American Financing get you the support you need! Call 866-889-1776 or visit http://americanfinancing.net/turley.NMLS 182334, http://nmlsconsumeraccess.org/ APR for rates in the 5s start at 6.014% for well-qualified borrowers. Call 866-889-1776 for details about credit costs and terms.*Get Your Free Gold Report Now At turleytalkslikesgold.com.**The content presented by sponsors may contain affiliate links. When you click and shop the links, Turley Talks may receive a small commission.*--Thank you for taking the time to listen to this episode. If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe and/or leave a review.FOLLOW me on X (Twitter): https://twitter.com/DrTurleyTalksSign up for the 'New Conservative Age Rising' Email Alerts to get lots of articles on conservative trends: https://turleytalks.com/subscribe-to-our-newsletter**The use of any copyrighted material in this podcast is done so for educational and informational purposes only including parody, commentary, and criticism. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015). It is believed that this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

With a Republican Congress apparently unwilling to check Trump's power, many Americans fear a looming constitutional crisis and are looking to the federal courts to ride to the rescue. But political scientist and Harvard Kennedy School Professor Maya Sen, who studies the federal judiciary, says the cavalry probably isn't coming. The Trump administration has seemingly defied judicial orders on deportations, withholding congressionally appropriated funds for federal programs, eliminating birthright citizenship, and other issues. Meanwhile, surrogates like Vice President J.D. Vance and billionaire Elon Musk have stated in social media posts that Trump is simply not bound by judicial decisions and can do pretty much whatever he pleases. Trump has even joined with some of his political supporters calling for impeachment of judges who rule against him, prompting Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to respond and call Trump's statement “inappropriate.” With the legislative branch of government sitting on the sidelines and without a credible threat of impeachment, Sen says the judiciary is no match for an authoritarian executive in terms of speed of action and political muscle—and was never intended to be. And even if it had been, structural issues with the way decisions are made and how judges are chosen give conservatives an advantage, and have resulted in a Supreme Court that is largely out of step with public opinion. Sen talks with PolicyCast host Ralph Ranalli about what can be done to restore both the separation of powers and the balance of power in the U.S. government during this unprecedented pivotal moment in American history.Maya Sen's Policy Recommendations:Pass a constitutional amendment to end lifetime appointments and limit terms for federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, to 18 years to help depoliticize the process of judicial selection.Exert public and electoral pressure on Congress and political leaders to defend the legislative branch's constitutional prerogatives and to stop ceding power to the executive branch.Episode Notes:Maya Sen is a political scientist whose interests include law, political economy, race and ethnic politics, and statistical methods. She has testified before Congress and presidential commissions on issues pertaining to the federal courts, and her research has been published in numerous academic journals including the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Political Science Review, the American Journal of Political Science, and The Journal of Politics. . Her writings also include the books “The Judicial Tug of War: How Lawyers, Politicians, and Ideological Incentives Shape the American Judiciary,” and “Deep Roots: How Slavery Still Shapes Southern Politics,” which won the 2019 William H. Riker Book Award for best book published in political economy. She is currently working on a book on the relationship between the Supreme Court and public opinion. Professor Sen earned a PhD from the Department of Government at Harvard University in 2012 and holds an AM in Statistics and an AB in Economics, both from Harvard University, as well as a JD from Stanford Law School.Ralph Ranalli of the HKS Office of Communications and Public Affairs is the host, producer, and editor of HKS PolicyCast. A former journalist, public television producer, and entrepreneur, he holds an BA in political science from UCLA and a master's in journalism from Columbia University.Scheduling and logistical support for PolicyCast is provided by Lilian Wainaina. Design and graphics support is provided by Laura King and the OCPA Design Team. Web design and social media promotion support is provided by Catherine Santrock and Natalie Montaner of the OCPA Digital Team. Editorial support is provided by Nora Delaney and Robert O'Neill of the OCPA Editorial Team. 

On Thursday Feb. 27 the State Legislature held the last, but certainly not the least, public hearing on the state budget. The topic was taxes and state revenues as well as the likely loss of federal funding for New York under President Trump and a Republican Congress. We hear from Nathan Gusdorf, Executive Director of the Fiscal Policy Institute; Charles Kahn of the Strong Economy for All Coalition; and Ron Deutsch of New Yorkers for Fiscal Fairness. With Mark Dunlea of the Hudson Mohawk Magazine.

Viral images circulated around the internet this week showing a gigantic bruise on Donald Trump's right hand. The White House claims that the bruise is simply due to a day of "vigorous handshaking" by the President, but that excuse is nearly impossible to believe. There's likely a much more significant reason for the bruising, and those who know the signs know EXACTLY what that bruising looks like.Republican lawmakers have been leaving their Washington, D.C. bubble to go back to their districts and talk to voters. Unfortunately for them, things aren't going the way that they had anticipated. Republicans are being greeted by angry constituents who are fed up with the chaos from the Trump administration - and Republican Congress - and they want REAL solutions to the problems that they are facing.In the span of just 90 minutes on Tuesday, the Trump administration managed to lose three separate preliminary court cases on issues ranging from government funding to immigration. The losses continue to pile up against the Trump administration, and so far they only have one "victory" to speak of (and even that one wasn't worth anything.) The problem is that Trump's lawyers have no idea what they're doing and they keep getting hammered by the judges. Donald Trump announced this week that he wanted to launch a "Gold Card" program for immigrants where they could simply pay $5 million to almost immediately get approval to become citizens of the United States. This is proof that Trump and his cronies are only interested in helping wealthy people - domestically and abroad - and that poor people have no room at the table in this administration. Text and and let us know your thoughts on today's stories!Subscribe to our YouTube channel to stay up to date on all of Farron's content: https://www.youtube.com/FarronBalancedFollow Farron on social media! Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/FarronBalanced Twitter: https://twitter.com/farronbalanced Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/farronbalanced TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@farronbalanced?lang=en

After Trump promised his MAGA base that there would be no Medicaid cuts, he forced his Republican Congress to pass a bill that starts the process of doing just that.Subscribe to our Newsletter:https://politicsdoneright.com/newsletterPurchase our Books: As I See It: https://amzn.to/3XpvW5o How To Make AmericaUtopia: https://amzn.to/3VKVFnG It's Worth It: https://amzn.to/3VFByXP Lose Weight And BeFit Now: https://amzn.to/3xiQK3K Tribulations of anAfro-Latino Caribbean man: https://amzn.to/4c09rbE

It's day 37 and Orange Caligula waited until we were sleeping to have his oligarch bought and paid for Republican Congress vote to have a "Budget Reconciliation" measure. It opened the door way and the first thing they are taking is Medicaid. Medicaid provides health care for 71 MILLION Americans. 70% of people in nursing homes are in Medicaid Beds - this puts them on the street. 12 MILLION people have Medicaid as a supplement to their Medicare. These are WORKING, Poor and retired people. These are helpless people that need Medicaid to SURVIVE. And Mike Johnson puts on his "I'm a FAKE Christian" persona and passes it in the name of God? Seriously? Democracy, FDR, Jasmine Crockett, JFK, Johnson, Carter, Biden, Clinton, Obama, trump is a convicted felon, trump, health care, DNC, DPI, Democratic Party, Guns, Safety, armageddon, evangelicals are nuts, Orange Caligula, From The Edge of The Great Red Divide, The Blue Island in a sea of Red, trump is a mushroom headed dick with ears. Human Decency, LGBT, Brown Children, Ice Raids,Agriculture, Farm, Farm Bill, Farmers, Corn, Soybeans, LAND!, Musk, Coup, No mass deportations,

President Trump can't stop racking up wins as the MAGA revolution rages on. In this episode, I cover the changes coming at breakneck speed and how, at the peak of his powers, Trump has finally unified the Republican Congress and started America's new "golden age". Trump Admin Designates Mexican Drug Cartels Foreign Terrorist Organizations Border Patrol Report Shows Trump Already Made A Huge Dent In Illegal Immigration WaPo Embarrasses Itself with This Headline About Ukraine Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

On today's episode of Rev Up!, we will discuss the impact of the new presidency and Congress on the Automotive/Mobility Industry…and how the Republican election sweep will replace the Biden administration and could pave the way for legislative and regulatory changes affecting the industry. Questions and comments: ahess@bakerlaw.com and proskam@bakerlaw.com

The Republican legislative agenda is set to tackle tax cuts, increase border security, and open up American energy production. But how does the GOP aim to accomplish these goals?

From a new so-called Department of Government Efficiency to an incoming Republican Congress, deep cuts to the federal government are promised this year. Among areas to be reviewed are Medicaid and Medicare. But that spending is popular among voters — Republicans and Democrat alike, according to a new poll from the health research organization KFF. But first, California officials are launching a new effort to help people navigate the insurance maze this weekend.

From a new so-called Department of Government Efficiency to an incoming Republican Congress, deep cuts to the federal government are promised this year. Among areas to be reviewed are Medicaid and Medicare. But that spending is popular among voters — Republicans and Democrat alike, according to a new poll from the health research organization KFF. But first, California officials are launching a new effort to help people navigate the insurance maze this weekend.

It's another day of dramatic sparring on Capitol Hill, as the Republican Congress moves aggressively to confirm President Trump's crucial Cabinet picks. Today is the turn of Treasury pick Scott Bessant, as well as Lee Zeldin's hearing for EPA Commissioner and Doug Burgum's to run Interior. Plus, Pam Bondi has a second day of interrogation. Charlie provides live content and reacts to the hearings.Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It's another day of dramatic sparring on Capitol Hill, as the Republican Congress moves aggressively to confirm President Trump's crucial Cabinet picks. Today is the turn of Treasury pick Scott Bessant, as well as Lee Zeldin's hearing for EPA Commissioner and Doug Burgum's to run Interior. Plus, Pam Bondi has a second day of interrogation. Charlie provides live content and reacts to the hearings.Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Text us your thoughts on this episodeJoin PwC to explore what's top of mind for the C-suite following the recent US election and key actions to foster agility and seize opportunities in 2025 under a new administration. As we move into a new administration led by President-elect Donald Trump and a Republican Congress, business leaders are focused on what's coming next. Leading our conversation today is Kathryn Kaminsky, Chief Commercial Officer for PwC, as we hear insights from PwC leaders unpacking potential changes. We'll cover everything from policy actions and supply chain impacts to how business can manage AI responsibly and adapt to rising energy demands.  Business leaders have a lot to think about in the coming months. It's a crucial time to plan, be strategic and prioritize effectively.  Find more insights here on how the 2024 election will impact your business. For more information on this episode's speakers, and to view the full transcript, please visit pwc.com.

The Eaton and Palisades fires continue to wreak destruction across Los Angeles. They are predicted to become the most expensive fire recovery in American history. As the fires have burned, a torrent of right-wing rage has emerged online. Elon Musk, Donald Trump, and Charlie Kirk have attacked liberal mismanagement and blamed D.E.I. programs and “woke” politics for the destruction. Meanwhile, California's governor, Gavin Newsom, has expressed concerns that the future Trump Administration may add conditions to federal financial-assistance relief for California, something that Republican Congress members have already floated. The New Yorker staff writer Jay Caspian Kang joins Tyler Foggatt to discuss what happens when disaster relief is swept up in the culture war. This week's reading: “The Insurance Crisis That Will Follow the California Fires,” by Elizabeth Kolbert “On the Ground During L.A.'s Wildfire Emergency,” by Emily Witt “An Arson Attack in Puerto Rico,” by Graciela Mochkofsky “Elon Musk's Latest Terrifying Foray Into British Politics,” By Sam Knight “The Pressure Campaign to Get Pete Hegseth Confirmed as Defense Secretary,” by Jane Mayer To discover more podcasts from The New Yorker, visit newyorker.com/podcasts. To send feedback on this episode, write to themail@newyorker.com. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Become a Client: https://nomadcapitalist.com/apply/ Get our free Weekly Rundown newsletter and be the first to hear about breaking news and offers:https://nomadcapitalist.com/email Join us for the next Nomad Capitalist Live event: https://nomadcapitalist.com/live/ In this episode, we cover former Trump White House official Steve Bannon's plan to "soak the rich" with taxes. Mr Henderson explains how the MAGA movement has increasingly shown support for raising taxes on the wealthy while advocating in favor of tax cuts for the middle class. Mr Henderson discusses whether President Donald Trump, along with Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy and a Republican Congress, can succeed in reforming Washington, D.C. and lowering taxes. Additionally, he reveals steps Americans can take to legally eliminate most, if not all, of their taxes. Nomad Capitalist helps clients "go where you're treated best." We are the world's most sought-after firm for offshore tax planning, dual citizenship, international diversification, and asset protection. We use legal and ethical strategies and work exclusively with seven- and eight-figure entrepreneurs and investors. We create and execute holistic, multi-jurisdictional Plans that help clients keep more of their wealth, increase their personal freedom, and protect their families and wealth against threats in their home country. No other firm offers clients access to more potential options to relocate to, bank in, or become a citizen of. Because we do not focus only on one or a handful of countries, we can offer unbiased advice where others can't. Become Our Client: https://nomadcapitalist.com/apply/ Our Website: http://www.nomadcapitalist.com/ About Our Company: https://nomadcapitalist.com/about/ Buy Mr. Henderson's Book: https://nomadcapitalist.com/book/ DISCLAIMER: The information in this episode should not be considered tax, financial, investment, or any kind of professional advice. Only a professional diagnosis of your specific situation can determine which strategies are appropriate for your needs. Nomad Capitalist can and does not provide advice unless/until engaged by you.

[SEGMENT 1-1] Transition time 1 Joe Biden pardoned 37 death row prisoners. “Make no mistake: I condemn these murderers, grieve for the victims of their despicable acts, and ache for all the families who have suffered unimaginable and irreparable loss,” Biden's statement said. “But guided by my conscience and my experience as a public defender, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, vice president, and now president, I am more convinced than ever that we must stop the use of the death penalty at the federal level.” “These are among the worst killers in the world and this abhorrent decision by Joe Biden is a slap in the face to the victims, their families, and their loved ones.” said Trump spokesman Steven Cheung. “President Trump stands for the rule of law, which will return when he is back in the White House after he was elected with a massive mandate from the American people.” I agree wholeheartedly that we need to shorten the transition period, particularly in light of what's happening today. The prolonged lame-duck phase has outlived its usefulness, and in its current form, it's a breeding ground for mischief, as Guy Ciarrocchi eloquently points out.  [SEGMENT 1-2] Transition time 2 There are serious issues that need to be addressed, and Joe Biden is in no condition to do so. But even if he were, is it his job? In most places in the world, after the election ends, the new party takes over then and there. But not here. Why?   Another bill Biden signed will strip lawmakers of their taxpayer-funded pensions if convicted of using their office to commit corruption-related offenses.  Congress passed the bipartisan No Corruption Act in the wake of ex-Sen. Bob Menendez‘s (D-NJ) bribery scandal. The legislation addresses a “loophole” in current law that allows lawmakers to receive pensions as long as their case is going through the courts.     Guy Ciarrocchi wrote: The world has changed. Life has changed. Politics has changed. It is time to change the 20th Amendment of our Constitution. January 20th is too long to wait for a new president.  [SEGMENT 1-3] Transition time 3 It doesn't happen in nature, in that when a group of lions takes over a pride, deposing the old guard, they don't have a transition period. I understand why it's supposedly done. Because we are not animals. We want things to continue to operate properly for the nation, blah blah blah. https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/17/opinions/terrible-presidential-transitions-hurt-america-balcerski/index.html The election of 1860 provoked a serious challenge to presidential transition. In November, Lincoln won sufficient votes in the Electoral College to beat three challengers and secure a term as president. One month later, South Carolina gathered a statewide convention and unanimously voted to secede from the Union. Soon thereafter, six more southern states followed suit. Lame duck President Buchanan poorly managed the developing crisis. He announced himself against southern secession, yet he also believed the government powerless to prevent the action. Instead, Buchanan looked to Congress for a solution. A gathering of “old gentlemen” in Washington, DC, yielded a series of appeasement measures, known as the Crittenden Compromise, which aimed to protect slavery by constitutional provision. But President-elect Lincoln wisely refused to accept any compromise emanating from the unpopular Buchanan administration. On Inauguration Day, Lincoln called on Buchanan at the White House, and the two men rode together in an open carriage to the Capitol. Despite a conciliatory inaugural address, war erupted when Confederate forces fired on Fort Sumter in April 1861. The new Republican Congress was furious with Buchanan's actions during the lame duck period. They took away the franking privilege for ex-presidents (thus requiring them to affix their own postage) – and even declined to pay for Buchanan's official portrait. Buchanan defended his actions on the “eve of rebellion” in what historians consider the first presidential memoir, but he failed to rehabilitate his reputation. For his inaction as the Union fell apart around him, he is routinely ranked the worst president in American history. (…) By 1932, the Great Depression had plunged the American economy to new lows. Confidence had been lost in the banking system, farmers could find no market for their crops and unemployment reached nearly 25%. In November, Roosevelt's promise of a government-sponsored New Deal handily defeated Hoover's campaign for cooperative voluntarism among private individuals. The day after Election Day, at 9:34 p.m., Hoover begrudgingly conceded by telegram, writing: “In the common purpose of all of us, I shall dedicate myself to every possible helpful effort.” But, in reality, Hoover did everything in his power to stand in the way of Roosevelt's New Deal. In effect, Hoover wanted Roosevelt to renounce portions of the New Deal, like his public works programs, before taking office. In turn, Roosevelt refused to collaborate in any way with the outgoing president. In the meantime, the effects of the Great Depression only worsened. On Inauguration Day, Hoover and Roosevelt shared a tense ride from the White House to the Capitol, with Roosevelt making small talk about the impressive preparations along the parade route. Mercifully, the extended lame-duck period, designed for an era when Americans traveled by horse or sail, was nearing its end. In Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-kevin-jackson-show--2896352/support.

Riot's Pierre Rochard joins the show to share his thoughts on Trump's second administration, the potential of federal and state-level strategic bitcoin reserves, and more.Welcome back to The Mining Pod! Today, Riot's VP of Research, Pierre Rochard, joins Will and Colin to discuss a variety of topics. The fellas start by talking about what a second Trump presidency and Republican Congress means for Bitcoin miners, especially in light of the last administration and Congress' hostility toward all things Bitcoin. He also weighs the merits of a national Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, as well as one in Texas, and the pod closes on discussion of Riot's $594.4 million convertible note and the miner's expansion outside of Texas. Timestamps:00:00 Start03:09 Pierre's bio15:13 Elizabeth Warren17:03 Expecting positive regulation?20:36 Texas mining bills27:32 AI power demand on Texas grid31:54 Strategic Bitcoin Reserve33:42 National SBR?34:45 Riot convertible note40:24 Why not invest in infrastructure?42:43 Why debt financing now?45:16 Convertible debt niche51:41 New Kentucky mining sitePublished twice weekly, "The Mining Pod" interviews the best builders and operators in the Bitcoin and Bitcoin mining landscape. Subscribe to get notifications when we publish interviews on Tuesday and a news show on Friday!

Welcome back to The Mining Pod! Today, Riot's VP of Research, Pierre Rochard, joins Will and Colin to discuss a variety of topics. The fellas start by talking about what a second Trump presidency and Republican Congress means for Bitcoin miners, especially in light of the last administration and Congress' hostility toward all things Bitcoin. He also weighs the merits of a national Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, as well as one in Texas, and the pod closes on discussion of Riot's $594.4 million convertible note and the miner's expansion outside of Texas.  Timestamps: 00:00 Start 03:09 Pierre's bio 15:13 Elizabeth Warren 17:03 Expecting positive regulation? 20:36 Texas mining bills 27:32 AI power demand on Texas grid 31:54 Strategic Bitcoin Reserve 33:42 National SBR? 34:45 Riot convertible note 40:24 Why not invest in infrastructure? 42:43 Why debt financing now? 45:16 Convertible debt niche 51:41 New Kentucky mining site 45:31 Bigger narratives in mining  48:10 The future of bitcoin mining and data centers 52:55 What metrics aren't worthwhile? 43:02 What does 2025 look like? Published twice weekly, "The Mining Pod" interviews the best builders and operators in the Bitcoin and Bitcoin mining landscape. Subscribe to get notifications when we publish interviews on Tuesday and a news show on Friday! 

And so the great American election crisis that was destined to be, didn't happen – the end-result stirring relatively little in the way of legal challenges or disruption of the constitutional process, with the public feeling better about the democratic process (or so the post-election polls suggest).  In this, the last of four installments on election integrity in the 2024 campaign cycle, Ben Ginsberg, the Hoover Institution's Volker Distinguished Visiting Fellow and a preeminent authority on election law, joins Hoover distinguished policy fellow Bill Whalen to discuss whether America's crazy quilt of election systems and safeguards was formidable or merely fortunate in 2024, what laws a Republican Congress might pursue (voter ID?), plus future Hoover endeavors to help craft better ways of holding elections in America. Recorded on December 11th, 2024. 

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 1: 3:05pm- While appearing on Fox News with Harris Faulkner, Congressman Jeff Van Drew said he has heard from a reliable source that the mysterious drones flying over North and Central New Jersey may be Iranian. 3:10pm- According to reports, Christopher Wray has informed colleagues that he plans to step down from his position as FBI Director. The decision is unsurprising, as president-elect Donald Trump has already announced his plans to nominate Kash Patel to serve as the head of the bureau. 3:35pm- During a press briefing on Wednesday, Deputy Defense Press Secretary Sabrina Singh denied Rep. Jeff Van Drew's claims that the drones flying over New Jersey are of Iranian origin—or that they are confirmed to be adversarial. Though, she was unable to explain where the drones are from or what purpose they serve. 3:40pm- Phil Kerpen—President of American Commitment—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss Donald Trump's cabinet appointments, reducing the power of unelected bureaucrats, and which policies the Trump Administration and Republican Congress will prioritize in January.

The Rich Zeoli Show- Full Episode (12/11/2024): 3:05pm- While appearing on Fox News with Harris Faulkner, Congressman Jeff Van Drew said he has heard from a reliable source that the mysterious drones flying over North and Central New Jersey may be Iranian. 3:10pm- According to reports, Christopher Wray has informed colleagues that he plans to step down from his position as FBI Director. The decision is unsurprising, as president-elect Donald Trump has already announced his plans to nominate Kash Patel to serve as the head of the bureau. 3:35pm- During a press briefing on Wednesday, Deputy Defense Press Secretary Sabrina Singh denied Rep. Jeff Van Drew's claims that the drones flying over New Jersey are of Iranian origin—or that they are confirmed to be adversarial. Though, she was unable to explain where the drones are from or what purpose they serve. 3:40pm- Phil Kerpen—President of American Commitment—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss Donald Trump's cabinet appointments, reducing the power of unelected bureaucrats, and which policies the Trump Administration and Republican Congress will prioritize in January. 4:05pm- State Senator Mike Testa— Serving New Jersey's 1st District—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss a Homeland Security briefing he attended earlier today where federal officials were unable to offer any clarity regarding the mysterious drones flying over New Jersey at night. 4:15pm- Listeners react to the mystery drones flying around North and Central New Jersey—why doesn't the government just shoot one down and analyze it? 4:30pm- According to a new CNN poll, 65% of Americans have confidence in Donald Trump's ability to solve economic problems. In fact, a majority of Americans have confidence in his performance on all major issues, including Russia/Ukraine, immigration, providing leadership, foreign affairs, appointing the best people, and using power responsibly. 4:35pm- While speaking on Newsmax, Senator John Cornyn said he warned Pete Hegseth that his confirmation process will likely be very unpleasant—but encouraged him to remain strong. 4:40pm- Pete Hegseth Foils Media Hit Piece. Amanda Prestigiacomo of The Daily Wire writes: “On Wednesday, Trump's nominee for Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, scooped a left-wing media outlet that was preparing to publish a story about Hegseth supposedly lying about getting into the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. Hegseth, a decorated combat veteran, posted photos of his acceptance letter from the academy in a now-viral post. The 44-year-old said he chose not to attend the academy after he was accepted.” ProPublica ultimately decided not to run the report. You can read the full article here: https://www.dailywire.com/news/pete-hegseth-scoops-apparent-media-hit-piece-about-west-point-heres-my-letter-of-acceptance 5:05pm- Time Magazine has picked their “Person of the Year”—Donald Trump. Rich notes that Trump has had the greatest political comeback in American history. 5:10pm- Senator John Fetterman (D-PA) condemned progressives for praising Luigi Mangione—the suspect in the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. Meanwhile, during an appearance on MSNBC with Joy Reid, Senator Elizabeth Warren shamefully explained away the murder: “you can only push people so far” citing problems with the healthcare industry. 5:25pm- In a post to X, Sen. John Fetterman announced he would be supporting Rep. Elise Stefanik's appointment to serve as United Nations Ambassador. He wrote: “Always was a hard YES for Elise Stefanik but it was a pleasure to have a conversation. I support defunding UNRWA for its documented Hamas infiltration and fully look forward to her holding the UN accountable for its endemic antisemitism and blatant anti-Israel views.” 5:40pm- Rich gets mentioned on Fox News' “The Five”—but Matt doesn't have the audio. And why doesn't he watch tv!?!? 5:45pm- While appearing on Fox News with Harris Faulkner, Congressman Jeff Van Drew said he ...

The future of Opportunity Zones hangs in the balance. With Trump as President and a Republican Congress, will the tax policy be extended and renewed in 2025? This panel discussion was presented live at OZ Pitch Day on November 14, 2024, featuring Catherine Lyons of the Economic Innovation Group and Jill Homan of Javelin 19 Investments. Moderated by Jimmy Atkinson of OpportunityZones.com. Show notes & transcript: https://opportunityzones.com/2024/12/legislation-panel-326/

We all knew that 2025 would be a watershed year for tax policy, with the expiration of several key provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) alone guaranteed a busy tax policy year. Now the 2024 elections are over, resulting in the election of President-elect Trump and a Republican Congress. On this episode of tax break, host Rob Kovacev is joined by Miller & Chevalier Tax Policy Co-Lead Jorge Castro to answer some pressing questions: Do the election results provide taxpayers with more certainty or less? What is likely to happen to TCJA? What are the other big changes that may happen to the tax code?  ********* Thank you to Jorge Castro for joining us: https://www.millerchevalier.com/professional/jorge-e-castro Questions? Contact us at podcasts@milchev.com. tax break is not intended and cannot be relied on as legal advice; the content only reflects the thoughts and opinions of its hosts. tax break is a podcast about tax law, brought to you by Miller & Chevalier and hosted by Loren Ponds and Rob Kovacev. We'll provide you with perspective on select tax issues that will go deeper than what the tax press covers, but not so deep that you'll have to pull out your regulations or read treatises to follow along. The aim of tax break is to focus only on the tax law issues that we find interesting. Subscribe to tax break wherever you get your podcasts.

Higher Education Expert Analysis of Anticipated Federal Policy Changes Under the Incoming Administration Part 1 of this two-part podcast welcomes back Tom Netting, president of TEN Government Strategies and our Washington Update expert, to examine how the 2024 US elections will transform higher education. Drawing from over three decades of policy expertise on The Hill, Netting provides an insider's perspective on the anticipated changes a Trump administration and Republican Congress could bring to higher education. The conversation unpacks major shifts within the Department of Education, from FAFSA modernization and Title IX overhaul to the future of student loan repayment. Netting addresses pressing questions about federal funding streams, potential departmental restructuring, and the impact of new IT security regulations. The discussion culminates in a penetrating analysis of how evolving ROI metrics could fundamentally alter higher education funding decisions. Overview What Higher Education Leaders Will Gain from Listening to This Podcast Higher Education Implications of the 2024 Election – Part 1 The incoming presidential administration is expected to bring significant changes to the Department of Education, moving much faster than it did in the previous administration. Key personnel appointments are being announced quickly and are comprised of a more seasoned team. Netting doesn't believe the Department of Education will be abolished but expects significant changes in how it is run, particularly with Linda McMahon as the nominee for Secretary of Education. Her background suggests the Department will be run more like a business with an emphasis on fiscal responsibility. Higher education leaders should be prepared to embrace potential changes, some of which might be positive. For example, the administration is expected to address the challenges with the FAFSA form and the administration of student financial aid, issues that have led to a decline in applications. Federal Higher Education Reform: Key Policy Changes for 2025 Key areas of change within the Department of Education likely include: Title IX: The current Title IX regulations are facing legal challenges, with 26 states blockading the regulations as put forward and 24 states trying to implement them in the new iteration, which is causing chaos for institutions. The new administration may revisit these regulations. Gainful Employment and Financial Value Transparency Regulations: All institutions, not just proprietary or those subject to loss of eligibility, are supposed to submit information on all of their student cohorts to the Department of Education by January 15th. These regulations, requiring institutions to submit data on student cohorts and completers lists, are facing scrutiny and potential revision under the new administration. Income-Contingent Based Repayment Plans: The administration will need to address the upcoming deadline for student loan repayments and may revise existing income-driven repayment plans. Netting succinctly explains the difference in opinion between Republicans and Democrats on student loan repayment.  Return on Investment (ROI) in Higher Education: The new administration is likely to focus on the ROI of higher education, potentially using a calculation similar to the one used for “exemplary institutions” under the previous administration. This could lead to an assessment of ROI across all sectors of higher education and influence funding decisions. The major difference, however, is that this new equation methodology recognizes a 10-year window, not a 3-year window of earnings potential.  Three Key Takeaways for Higher Education Leaders Engage with Policymakers: Actively engaging with policymakers at both the state and federal levels. This involves understanding their priorities, building relationships, and advocating for policies that support higher education. Prioritize Cybersecurity: The increasing focus on cybersecurity, particularly the NIST 800-171 regulations, makes cybersecurity a top priority. This includes investing in necessary infrastructure and personnel to ensure compliance and protect sensitive data. Focus on Workforce Development: Place a high priority on workforce development and the need for higher education institutions to align their programs with the needs of the economy. This includes forging partnerships with businesses and industries to provide relevant training and ensure graduates are well-prepared for the workforce. Higher Education Policy Outlook 2025 Overall, it is recommended higher education anticipate a period of significant change under the new administration. Leaders should stay informed about policy developments, particularly those related to the issues listed above, and be prepared to adapt to a new regulatory environment. Join us next week for Part 2 of this Washington Update with Tom Netting on anticipated changes coming in 2025 with the new administration.  Read the transcript on our website at https://changinghighered.com/washington-update-implications-of-the-2024-elections-on-higher-ed-part-1/ #HigherEducation #WashingtonUpdate #HigherEdPolicy About Our Podcast Guest Tom Netting Having spent all of his professional career devoted to higher education policy oversight and implementation, Tom Netting has an extensive knowledge of the laws and regulations governing all aspects of higher education. His considerable background and experience have afforded him the opportunity to view the development and implementation of federal higher education and workforce development policy in their entirety – including issues related to higher education and workforce development, health care, veteran affairs policies, and the procurement of federal appropriations. About the Host Dr. Drumm McNaughton is the founder, CEO, and Principal Consultant at The Change Leader, Inc. A highly sought-after higher education consultant with 20+ years of experience, Dr. McNaughton works with leadership, management, and boards of both U.S. and international institutions. His expertise spans key areas, including accreditation, governance, strategic planning, presidential onboarding, mergers, acquisitions, and strategic alliances. Dr. McNaughton's approach combines a holistic methodology with a deep understanding of the contemporary and evolving challenges facing higher education institutions worldwide to ensure his clients succeed in their mission.

We discuss the challenges of the U.S. deficit and debt as President-elect Donald Trump prepares to take office with a Republican Congress. The discussion and content provided within this podcast is intended for informational purposes only and may not be appropriate for all investors. Reliance upon information provided in a podcast is at the sole responsibility of the listener. The information included herein is not based on any particularized financial situation, or need, and is not intended to be, and should not be construed as, a forecast, research, investment advice or a recommendation for any specific PIMCO or other security, strategy, product or service. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results. All investments contain risk and may lose value. Investors should speak to their financial advisors regarding the investment mix that may be right for them based on their financial situation and investment objective. Podcasts may involve discussions with non-PIMCO personnel and such content contain the current opinions of the speaker but not necessarily those of PIMCO. Other podcasts may consist of audio recording of an existing PIMCO article and such material contains the current opinions of the manager. The opinions expressed in all podcasts are subject to change without notice. Information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but not guaranteed. PIMCO as a general matter provides services to qualified institutions, financial intermediaries and institutional investors. This is not an offer to any person in any jurisdiction where unlawful or unauthorized. For additional important information go to www.pimco.com/gbl/en/general/legal-pages/podcast-disclosures

The recent U.S. election has raised a lot of questions about future directions for grid-related policies and programs. We reached out to people with a good view on the new administration for their perspectives. In this first special episode, Bryce chats with Kellie Donnelly, Executive Vice President & General Counsel of Lot Sixteen and a long time lead staff person for the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and other Hill positions. They cover how an incoming Trump administration might shift energy policy, impact key federal agencies, and change national energy priorities. Bryce and Kellie also discuss how the Republican Congress may bring back the reconciliation process in a package bill, implications of the Congressional Review Act, and how grid innovation may be impacted under the returning administration.

This week on the podcast, Cate is joined by Lisa Margulies, the vice president of Public Affairs for Planned Parenthood Maine Action Fund. Lisa discusses the potential impacts of a Trump presidency and Republican Congress on reproductive health, as well as how state funding for family planning providers can mitigate this impact. The need for… The post How Maine can safeguard reproductive health care under Trump first appeared on Maine Beacon.

Breana Noble is a reporter for The Detroit News covering the automotive industry with a focus on Ford Motor Co. What EV policies, laws could be 'gutted' by Trump administration, Republican Congress

Guests: Kathleen Sebelius, Melanie Zanona, Harry Litman, McKay Coppins, Jamelle BouieThe push to break the system. Tonight: why the crank that Donald Trump wants in charge of American health symbolizes the entire approach to his second term. Then, the Republican Speaker tries to bury the Matt Gaetz report to save Trump's attorney general pick. Plus, the damage that Gaetz could do to the rule of law. And Trump's plan for the Republican Congress to bend the knee. Want more of Chris? Download and subscribe to his podcast, “Why Is This Happening? The Chris Hayes podcast” wherever you get your podcasts.

Elections have consequences. What does four more years of Trump mean for our environment? (Hint: It's baaaaaaaaaad.) But local elections were a lot better. In Eureka: Measure F failed spectacularly, firmly clarifying that Eureka voters want more housing and approve of the city's parking lots-to-apartments plan. The rejection of Measure F also hints that while money matters in politics, it only can get you so far. City Councilmembers Scott Bauer and Kati Moulton were re-elected too, which the EcoNews sees as an endorsement of the direction of the city and a rejection of the Take Back Eureka crowd (again).In Arcata: Incumbents Stacy Atkins-Salazar, Sarah Schaefer and Alex Stillman appear to have won. (Political newcomer Genevieve Serna may still be within striking distance of Stillman.) What unites these candidates? All four of the top vote getters are firmly pro-housing and were supportive of the Gateway Area Plan. Two of the candidates most critical of Arcata's housing ambitions failed to eclipse 8% of the vote. The EcoNews sees this as an endorsement of the pro-housing direction of the current council. Zooming out to the state: Voters appear to have approved Proposition 4, the California climate bond, which will invest $10 billion into fighting the climate crisis. This money may be particularly important given likely disinvestment in climate action from a unified Republican Congress and White House. Support the show

Former president Donald Trump is now president-elect. But that wasn't the only win this week for the GOP. Republicans have also secured a majority in the Senate, and they're poised to win the House of Representatives. WSJ's Siobhan Hughes breaks down what this Republican trifecta could look like. Further Reading: -Republicans Poised to Keep Control of House After Winning Senate  -How Republicans Regained Control of the Senate  Further Listening: -Red, White and Who? It's Trump.  -How Donald Trump Pulled Off a Historic Comeback  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On the eve of a competitive US election, our CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist joins our head of Corporate Credit Research and Chief Fixed Income Strategist to asses how investors are preparing for each possible outcome of the race.----- Transcript -----Mike Wilson: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley's CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist.Andrew Sheets: I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Vishy Tirupattur: And I'm Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist.Mike Wilson: Today on the show, the day before the US election, we're going to do a conversation with my colleagues about what we're watching out for in the markets.It's Monday, November 4th, at 1130am in New York.So let's get after it.Andrew Sheets: Well, Mike, like you said, it's the day before the US election. The campaign is going down to the wire and the polling looks very close. Which means both it could be a while before we know the results and a lot of different potential outcomes are still in play. So it would be great to just start with a high-level overview of how you're thinking about the different outcomes.So, first Mike, to you, as you think across some of the broad different scenarios that we could see post election, what do you think are some of the most important takeaways for how markets might react?Mike Wilson: Yeah, thanks, Andrew. I mean, it's hard to, you know, consider oneself as an expert in these types of events, which are extremely hard to predict. And there's a lot of permutations, by the way. There's obviously the presidential election, but then of course there's congressional elections. And it's the combination of all those that then feed into policy, which could be immediate or longer lasting.So, the other thing to just keep in mind is that, you know, markets tend to pre-trade events like this. I mean, this is a known date, right? A known kind of event. It's not a surprise. And the outcome is a surprise. So people are making investments based on how they think the outcome is going to come. So that's the way we think about it now.Clearly, you know, treasury markets have sold off. Some of that's better economic data, as our strategists in fixed income have told us. But I think it's also this view that, you know, Trump presidency, particularly Republican sweep, may lead to more spending or bigger budget deficits. And so, term premium has widened out a bit, so that's been an area; here I think you could get some reversion if Harris were to win.And that has impact on the equity markets -- whether that's some maybe small cap stocks or financials; some of the, you know, names that are levered to industrial spending that they want to do from a traditional energy standpoint.And then, of course, on the negative side, you know, a lot of consumer-oriented stocks have suffered because of fears about tariffs increasing along with renewables. Because of the view that, you know, the IRA would be pared back or even repealed.And I think there's still follow through particularly in financials. So, if Trump were to win, with a Republican Congress, I think, you know, financials could see some follow through. I think you could see some more strength in small caps because of perhaps animal spirits increasing a little further; a bit of a blow off move, perhaps, in the indices.And then, of course, if Harris wins, I would expect, perhaps, bonds to rally. I think you might see some of these, you know, micro trades like in financials give back some along with small caps. And then you'd see a big rally in the renewables. And some of the tariff losers that have suffered recently. So, there's a lot, there's a lot of opportunity, depending on the outcome tomorrow.Andrew Sheets: And Vishy, as you think about these outcomes for fixed income, what really stands out to you?Vishy Tirupattur: I think what is important, Andrew, is really to think about what's happening today in the macro context, related to what was happening in 2016. So, if you look at 2016; and people are too quick to turn to the 2016 playbook and look at, you know, what a potential Trump, win would mean to the rates markets.I think we should keep in mind that going into the polls in 2016, the market was expecting a 30 basis points of rate hikes over the next 12 months. And that rate hike expectation transitioned into something like a 125 place basis points over the following 12 months. And where we are today is very different.We are looking at a[n] expectation of a 130-135 basis points of rate cuts over the next 12 months. So what that means to me is underlying macroeconomic conditions in where the economy is, where monetary policy is very, very different. So, we should not expect the same reaction in the markets, whether it's a micro or macro -- similar to what happened in 2016.So that's the first point. The second thing I want to; I'm really focused on is – if it is a Harris win, it's more of a policy continuity. And if it's a Trump win, there is going to be significant policy changes. But in thinking about those policy changes, you know, before we leap into deficit expansion, et cetera, we need to think in terms of the sequencing of the policy and what is really doable.You know, we're thinking three buckets. I think in terms of changes to immigration policy, changes to tariff policy, and changes to tax code. Of these things, the thing that requires no congressional approval is the changes to tariff policy, and the tariffs are probably are going to be much more front loaded compared to immigration. Or certainly the tax policy [is] going to take a quite a bit of time for it to work out – even under the Republican sweep scenario.So, the sequencing of even the tariff policy, the effect of the tariffs really depends upon the sequencing of tariffs itself. Do we get to the 60 per cent China tariffs off the bat? Or will that be built over time? Are we looking at across the board, 10 per cent tariffs? Or are we looking at it in much more sequential terms? So, I would be careful not to jump into any knee-jerk reaction to any outcome.Andrew Sheets: So, Mike, the next question I wanted to ask you is – you've been obviously having a lot of conversations with investors around this topic. And so, is there a piece of kind of conventional wisdom around the election or how markets will react to the election that you find yourself disagreeing with the most?Mike Wilson: Well, I don't think there's any standard reaction function because, as Vishy said -- depending on when the election's occurring, it's a very different setup. And I will go back to what he was saying on 2016. I remember in 2016, thinking after Trump won, which was a surprise to the markets, that was a reflationary trade that we were very bullish on because there was so much slack in the economy.We had borrowing capabilities and we hadn't done any tax cuts yet. So, there was just; there was a lot of running room to kind of push that envelope.If we start pushing the envelope further on spending or reflationary type policies, all of a sudden the Fed probably can't cut. And that changes the dynamics in the bond market. It changes the dynamics in the stock market from a valuation standpoint, for sure. We've really priced in this like, kind of glide path now on, on Fed policy, which will be kind of turned upside down if we try to reflate things.Andrew Sheets: So Vishy, that's a great point because, you know, I imagine something that investors do ask a lot about towards the bond market is, you know, we see these yields rising. Are they rising for kind of good reasons because the economy is better? Are they rising for less good reasons, maybe because inflation's higher or the deficit's widening too much? How do you think about that issue of the rise in bond yields? At what point is it rising for kind of less healthy reasons?Vishy Tirupattur: So Andrew, if you look back to the last 30 days or so, the reaction the Treasury yields is mostly on account of stronger data. Not to say that the expectation changes about the presidential election outcomes haven't played a role. They have. But we've had really strong data. You know, we can ignore the data from last Friday – because the employment data that we got last Friday was affected by hurricanes and strikes, etc. But take that out of the picture. The data has been very strong. So, it's really a reflection of both of them. But we think stronger data have played a bigger role in yield rise than electoral outcome expectation changes.Andrew Sheets: Mike, maybe to take that question and throw it back to you, as you think about this issue of the rise in yields – and at what point they're a problem for the equity market. How are you thinking about that?Mike Wilson: Well, I think there's two ways to think about it. Number one, if it really is about the data getting better, then all of a sudden, you know, maybe the multiple expansion we've seen is right. And that, it's sort of foretelling of an earnings growth picture next year that's, you know, much faster than what, the consensus is modeling.However, I'd push back on that because the consensus already is modeling a pretty good growth trajectory of about 12 per cent earnings growth. And that's, you know, quite healthy. I think, you know, it's probably more mixed. I mean, the term premium has gone up by 50 basis points, so some of this is about fiscal sustainability – no matter who wins, by the way. I wouldn't say either party has done a very good stewardship of, you know, monitoring the fiscal deficits; and I think some of it is definitely part of that. And then, look, I mean, this is what happened last year where, you know, we get financial conditions loosened up so much that inflation comes back. And then the Fed can't cut.So to me, you know, we're right there and we've written about this extensively. We're right around the 200-day moving average for 10-year yields. The term premium now is up about 50 basis points. There's not a lot of wiggle room now. Stock market did trade poorly last week as we went through those levels. So, I think if rates go up another 10 or 20 basis points post the election, no matter who wins and it's driven at least half by term premium, I think the equity market's not gonna like that.If rates kind of stay right around in here and we see term premium stabilize, or even come down because people get more excited about growth -- well then, we can probably rally a bit. So it's much a reason of why rates are going up as much as how much they're going up for the impact on equity multiples.Vishy Tirupattur: Andrew, how are you thinking about credit markets against this background?Andrew Sheets: Yeah, so I think a few things are important for credit. So first is I do think credit is a[n] asset class that likes moderation. And so, I think outcomes that are likely to deliver much larger changes in economic, domestic, foreign policy are worse for credit. I mean, I think that the current status quo is quite helpful to credit given we're trading at some of the tightest spreads in the last 20 years. So, I think the less that changes around that for the macro backdrop for credit, the better.I think secondly, you know, if I -- and Mike correct me, if you think I'm phrasing this wrong. But I think kind of some of the upside case that people make, that investors make for equities in the Republican sweep scenario is some version of kind of an animal spirits case; that you'll see lower taxes, less regulation, more corporate risk taking higher corporate confidence. That might be good for the equity market, but usually greater animal spirits are not good for the credit market. That higher level of risk taking is often not as good for the lenders. So, there are scenarios that you could get outcomes that might be, you know, positive for equities that would not be positive for credit.And then I think conversely, in say the event of a democratic sweep or in the scenarios where Harris wins, I do think the market would probably see those as potentially, you know, the lower vol events – as they're probably most similar to the status quo. And again, I think that vol suppression that might be helpful to credit; that might be helpful for things like mortgages that credit is compared to. And so, I think that's also kind of important for how we're thinking about it.To both Mike and Vishy, to round out the episode, as we mentioned, the race is close. We might not know the outcome immediately. As you're going to be looking at the news and the markets over Tuesday evening, into Wednesday morning. What's your process? How closely do you follow the events? What are you going to be focused on and what are kind of the pitfalls that you're trying to avoid?Maybe Vishy, I'll start with you.Vishy Tirupattur: I think the first thing I'd like to avoid is – do not make any market conclusions based on the first initial set of data. This is going to be a somewhat drawn out; maybe not as drawn out as last time around in 2020. But it is probably unlikely, but we will know the outcome on Tuesday night as we did in 2016.So, hurry up and wait as my colleague, Michael Zezas puts it.Mike Wilson: And I'm going to take the view, which I think most clients have taken over the last, you know, really several months, which is -- price is your best analyst, sadly. And I think a lot of people are going to do the same thing, right? So, we're all going to watch price to see kind of, ‘Okay, well, how was the market adjusting to the results that we know and to the results that we don't know?'Because that's how you trade it, right? I mean, if you get big price swings in certain things that look like they're out of bounds because of positioning, you gotta take advantage of that. And vice versa. If you think that the price movement is kind of correct with it, there's probably maybe more momentum if in fact, the market's getting it right.So this is what makes this so tricky – is that, you know, markets move not just based on the outcome of events or earnings or whatever it might be; but how positioning is. And so, the first two or three days – you know, it's a clearing event. You know, volatility is probably going to come down as we learn the results, no matter who wins. And then you're going to have to figure out, okay, where are things priced correctly? And where are things priced incorrectly? And then I can look at my analysis as to what I actually want to own, as opposed to tradeAndrew Sheets: That's great. And if I could just maybe add one, one thing for my side, you know, Mike – which you mentioned about volatility coming down. I do think that makes a lot of sense. That's something, you know, we're going to be watching on the credit side. If that does not happen, kind of as expected, that would be notable. And I also think what you mentioned about that interplay between, you know, higher yields and higher equities on some sort of initial move – especially if it was, a Republican sweep scenario where I think kind of the consensus view is that might be a 'stocks up yields up' type of type of environment. I think that will be very interesting to watch in terms of do we start to see a different interaction between stocks and yields as we break through some key levels. And I think for the credit market that interaction could certainly matter.It's great to catch up. Hopefully we'll know a lot more about how this all turned out pretty soon.Vishy Tirupattur: It's great chatting with both of you, Mike and Andrew.Mike Wilson: Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our U.S. Public Policy and Valuation, Accounting & Tax strategists assess the possible scenarios in the upcoming elections, and what they could mean for both taxpayers and the market.----- Transcript -----Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley's US public policy strategist.Todd Castagno: And I'm Todd Costagno, Head of Global Valuation, Accounting, and Tax Research at Morgan Stanley.Ariana Salvatore: With less than a week to go until the US election, the race is still neck and neck. Today, we dig into a key issue voters care about: Taxes.Todd Castagno: It's Tuesday, October 29th at 10am in New York.So, Ariana. Taxes are an issue that impact both businesses and individuals. It's a key component of both candidates plans and proposals. How have they evolved over the campaign?Ariana Salvatore: I'd say in general we do tend to see a lot of overlap between Harris' proposals and the ones that the Democrats were campaigning on before she took over the mantle from President Biden in July. That being said, in some instances, her plans go beyond what was requested in the president's fiscal year [20]25 budget request.For example, that $6,000 credit for newborns and the $25,000 homebuyer tax credit. These are areas where we've seen her campaign go beyond the scope of what Biden was campaigning on while he was still in the race. Of course, it's important to remember that any of these proposals would have to pass muster in a Democrat controlled or a split Congress – meaning that there will be some tempering of these plans at the margin.Todd Castagno: So former President Trump campaigned in his first election on tax policy. He's campaigning on tax policy in his current campaign. What are his plans and views?Ariana Salvatore: We've been talking about the Republican sweep outcome as the most deficit expansionary from tax policy changes because Republicans understandably have more fealty to the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.That law is set to expire by the end of next year. So, in a Trump win scenario plus Republican Congress, we think you can get most of that 2017 law extended. While in a Trump win scenario with divided government, it's probably a little bit narrower. In general, as I said, deficits skew larger in Republican win outcomes for that reason, with an asymmetry across the other election scenarios. That being said, we do still expect to see deficit expansion in 2026, regardless of who's in power, because these tax cuts will be extended one way or another.But Todd, you've done a lot of work in this area and there are some substantial impacts from a potential corporate rate increase to think through. Can you give us a little bit of detail on what that kind of increase would mean for stocks and bonds?Todd Castagno: Yeah. So, investors have been very focused on the rate and where it matters and where it does not matter. So, if you really think about it, most companies that are exposed to a rate increase or decrease are domestic oriented, consumer companies, retail companies, you know, hospital facilities, industrials; those are the most exposed to a rate increase.Multinationals this time around are less exposed. So, if we go back to 2017, we think about it; that was a different story. We had $2 trillion of trapped cash on the sidelines that did come back – buybacks, dividends, corporate hiring. You know, this time around, that's a different story. So there is exposure but it's mainly consumer-oriented companies.Ariana Salvatore: That makes sense. And you mentioned the 2017 almost as a blueprint for what we saw last time. You mentioned dividends and buybacks.Do you have any sense of how this time around could be different? What do we think companies would likely spend these tax cuts on?Todd Castagno: Well, there are tax cuts. I do think it's going to be different. I do think the $2 trillion does not exist. That's not going to happen. So, you're going to have fewer buybacks, fewer dividends. But you could see some changes in employment. You could see some changes in investment. Things like upfront expensing could help boost the economy, higher jobs, et cetera.One thing, Ariana. You know, tax cuts are expensive. I think that's what we've all contemplated for almost 10 years now. How are we going to pay for these in this new world?Ariana Salvatore: Well Republicans have proposed a few different pay forwards. But to your point, we're not in the same environment as 2017, and we don't expect to see the same ones that were part of the original Tax Cuts and Jobs Act negotiations this time around. Specifically, former President Trump has talked about not extending the SALT cap, which was a revenue raiser that capped the amount of deductions some individuals could take between state and federal taxes. That provision raised about $900 billion over 10 years.Republicans in general are mainly focused on peeling back some parts of the IRA – or the Inflation Reduction Act – as a cost saving measure, as well as letting some of the tax cuts from the 2017 law roll off.We contrast that with the Democrat sweep outcome, where we could see a corporate rate increase to 25 per cent in our view, in spite of Harris' pledge to bring it up to 28 per cent from the current 21 per cent.Todd Castagno: So, we could talk about the Inflation Reduction Act for a second. You know, that was a bill that was designed to bring energy, clean energy manufacturing back to the United States.It was a very large bill; it was partisan. But what do we think about in this next election outcome of actually repealing some of those items?Ariana Salvatore: It's a great question. And Republicans on the campaign trail have been talking a lot about peeling back the IRA. Importantly, in our view, we don't think a full-scale repeal is likely even in a Republican sweep outcome. There are a few reasons for that, but mainly because if you look at where these projects are being located, it's in Republican held states and districts. And Republicans in the house currently have said that they're not interested in rolling back the law. That being said, there are ways to potentially cap the amount of outstanding money that has not yet been allocated.And the president could work with the treasury or other federal agencies to tighten up some of the criteria or the guidance around accessing some of the tax credits that will limit the overall deployment.Todd Castagno: I think the recent Supreme Court decision also plays into that.With candidates' tax plans – I've run a lot of numbers from a company perspective. You've run a lot of numbers top down from a deficit perspective. What did you come to view?Ariana Salvatore: We do see deficits expanding in 2026 and beyond. That's because, in our view, it's not really in lawmakers' interest to allow all of the tax cuts – both individual and corporate – from 2017 to expire. We think the largest extension, as I mentioned before, comes in a Republican sweep. But in general, in some form or another, we think that at least a portion of these lower tax rates are going to stay around.That adds $2.8 trillion to the deficit over 10 years on the high end per our estimates; and $700 billion over 10 years in our smallest expansion scenario, a Democrat sweep.So finally, Todd, in either win outcome, what's the timeline of key tax-related events that investors should be paying attention to?Todd Castagno: So, this is the trillion-dollar question. So, most of the individual side of the tax cuts and jobs act expires at the end of 2025. There are certain business provisions that have already started to phase out. There are certain provisions that are permanent, like the corporate rate.When will Congress get to this? They will get to it at some point, but we just don't know when that is. Could it be early 2025? Could it be 2026? And I think investors should pay attention to that because Congress doesn't always act on time; and we also don't know what the extensions will look like. Some things could be extended three years, five years, 10 years. Some things could be permanent.So that's the jigsaw puzzle that we'll have to put together after the election.Ariana Salvatore: Great. Well, I guess three things in life are certain – death, taxes, and the fact that we will be following this issue very closely.Todd, thanks so much for taking the time to talk.Todd Castagno: Great to speak with you.Ariana Salvatore: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

NPR's Morning Edition radio news show hosted a live event about the election on October 22, 2024 at WHYY in Pennsylvania. This bonus episode features interviews from that event with experts and campaign surrogates for presidential candidates Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. Democratic Congress member Madeleine Dean of Pennsylvania spoke on behalf of the Harris campaign and Republican Congress member Byron Donalds of Florida spoke on behalf of the Trump campaign.Want more comprehensive analysis of the most important news of the day, plus a little fun? Subscribe to the Up First newsletter.This bonus episode of Up First was produced and edited by Taylor Haney, HJ Mai, Alice Woelfle, Iman Maani, Adam Bearne, Mohamad ElBardicy. The live event was produced by Kelley Dickens, Luke Garrett and Barry Gordemer, with engineering support from Neil Tevault and Hannah Gluvna. We get engineering support from Stacey Abbott and Zachary Coleman.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Trevor Loudon Reports – We stand at a crucial moment for America's future. Donald Trump's return to the White House is essential, but only with a strong Republican Congress can he enact the reforms our nation needs. Winning both the House and Senate is critical to stopping the Democrats' destructive agenda and securing lasting change for generations to come.

Trevor Loudon Reports – We stand at a crucial moment for America's future. Donald Trump's return to the White House is essential, but only with a strong Republican Congress can he enact the reforms our nation needs. Winning both the House and Senate is critical to stopping the Democrats' destructive agenda and securing lasting change for generations to come.

On Monday's Mark Levin Show, there's an enemy from within - the Jew-hating Islamists. Dearborn, Michigan is a hotbed of Islamist hate, and President Biden panders to them and sells out America and Israel. These Islamists in Dearborn are chanting ‘death to America', and this is what Biden, his party, and his media are bowing to. Also, President Trump's statement on abortion represents the constitutional and legal status before the Supreme Court nationalized the issue in Roe v. Wade. It is what conservatives have been demanding for half a century -- that is, the reversal of Roe. The constitutionalists on the Supreme Court are to be credited for what they did, and they came under enormous pressure and threats to change their ultimate decision. If we are to now insist on a federal law to prevent all abortions, it is strange indeed to expect that the radicals won't use federal law to impose Roe and beyond on the entire country. After all, they control the federal Leviathan, we don't. They can and will reverse anything a Republican Congress and presidency might do. Later, Nebraska Gov Jim Pillen needs to call the Nebraska legislature into a special session to fix the electoral college vote so the winner of the popular vote in Nebraska receives all the electoral votes. There needs to be an electoral college winner-take-all model in Nebraska. Finally, Sen Ted Cruz calls in to discuss the partisan DOJ, Biden's student loan lawlessness, Chuck Schumer's terrible border bill, and his extremely important Senate race. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices