#1705 Threatened Social Safety Nets Are Foundational to Healthy Societies

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Welcome to this episode of theaward-winning Best of the Left podcast.

(00:03):
We knew for decades before the overturningof Roe versus Wade that Republicans
wanted to repeal abortion rights.
But I recall an argument I heard manyyears ago from someone ostensibly on
the left about how wrong the left wasto worry about it, because after all,
George W. Bush had been in office foreight years and he didn't stop abortions.

(00:27):
Now, I knew that that was a profoundlyuninformed point at the time, but it was
also evidence that some people just don'tunderstand the time horizons over which
these kinds of plans to dismantle cherishrights and government programs play out.
George W. Bush also proposedprivatizing Social Security and

(00:47):
didn't succeed there either.
But in both cases, groundwork wasbeing laid as part of a multi-decade
effort that would -- theyhoped -- pay off in the future.
So don't be surprised when theycome for your earned benefit
programs, just as they came for thefundamental right to bodily autonomy.

(01:09):
For those looking for a quick overview,the sources providing our Top Takes
in about 50 minutes today includesTED Ed, All In with Chris Hayes,
Consider This, The PBS NewsHour,The Hartmann Report, On Point, and
The Worst Of All Possible Worlds.
Then in the additional Deeper Diveshalf of the show, there will be more

in three sections (01:28):
Section A, Social Security; followed by Section B,
General cuts; and Section C, Medicaidand Health and Human Services.
But first, we're still in majorpromotion mode as we've launched
our new weekly YouTube show, SOLVED!
We really need every hand on deckwe can get, so subscribe to the Best

(01:49):
of the Left YouTube channel, watch,like, comment, all of those things.
The response so far has been,I think entirely positive,
a hundred percent positive.
Which is fair because it's mostlypeople who already liked us who
are watching and commenting.
But we have also started tohear from some people who have
found us newly through YouTube.

(02:09):
So we are gratified to hear all ofthat because we are really proud of the
show we are making and definitely wantas many people as possible to see it.
So you going and checking it out andliking and commenting and doing all
those things helps other people find it.
So we absolutely appreciateany help you can give.
And now, on to the show.
In 1932, the Great Depressionentered its third winter.

(02:31):
One in four Americans was unemployed,marking the highest unemployment
rate in the country's history.
Tens of thousands had lost their homes andlife savings, and there was very little
confidence that Republican presidentHerbert Hoover could turn things around.
So when the election came, votersflocked to his Democratic competitor.
Franklin D. Roosevelt promised a NewDeal for Americans, a comprehensive set

(02:54):
of legislation to support strugglingcitizens and put the country back to work.
The massive federal interventionRoosevelt proposed was a radical
challenge to the individualist idealsthat governed many Americans' lives.
But due to the extreme circumstances,he began his presidency with
public and political support.
With the help of his advisors,Roosevelt's first a hundred days

(03:16):
in office were perhaps the mosteventful of any US President.
In just over three months, he pushed over15 bills through Congress and created an
alphabet soup of government agencies tohelp farmers, workers, and businesses.
The New Deal's first prioritywas stabilizing the banks.
Over the previous three years,many Americans had withdrawn their

(03:38):
savings out of fear the bank wouldlose their money in bad investments.
So to regain the public's confidence,FDR increased federal oversight of
commercial banks, and created bankinsurance to guarantee that any deposited
funds would always be available.
Next, he established the FederalEmergency Relief Administration.
FERA cataloged each state's need forrelief and provided funds to help

(04:02):
citizens afford groceries, rent,clothing, coal, and other necessities.
Meanwhile, the AgriculturalAdjustment Administration subsidized
farmers and educated them inimproving planting techniques.
These policies fed and housedthousands, but they didn't significantly
address the New Deal's biggestpromise: reducing unemployment.

(04:23):
So the Civilian Conservation Corps wasestablished to employ over 250,000 young
men for projects like tree planting,irrigation, and fire prevention.
The CCC offered onsite work camps thatprovided food, shelter, and education
to those employed, mostly young singlemen with families in need of relief.
Subsequent programs like the Work'sProgress Administration and the Tennessee

(04:46):
Valley Authority added projects, buildingroads, bridges, and hydroelectric dams.
The WPA also funded art,writing and theater programs.
These initiatives cut civilianunemployment in half, and they did so
alongside labor acts that abolishedchild labor, granted unions the
right to collective bargaining, andset the first national minimum wage.

(05:08):
Benefits were also createdto help those unable to work.
The Social Security Act establishedan old age pension system, in addition
to unemployment insurance, disabilitybenefits, and welfare assistance.
But despite these sweepingpolicies, the New Deal helped
some groups more than others.
Black Americans were hit hardest by theeconomic downturn, and the New Deal's
impact on Black communities varied widely.

(05:31):
In northern cities like Chicago, Blackcitizens received a large share of
jobs, vocational training and education,with New Deal programs teaching more
than 1 million Black Americans to read.
Northern Black communities alsoreceived an influx of public housing,
though it was heavily segregated.
In the south, results were less positive.
Roosevelt relied heavily on thesupport of Southern Democrats who

(05:53):
welcomed economic development butfought to preserve white supremacy.
They ensured that new labor lawsexcluded domestic servants and
agricultural workers, occupationsheld by many Black Americans.
These politicians and many othersalso undermined Eleanor Roosevelt's
attempts to push her husband towardssupporting a federal anti-lynching law.

(06:14):
As a result, the New Deal has often beencalled a raw deal for Black communities.
And many modern inequities in housing,employment, and financial stability
are partially due to New Dealprograms prioritizing white Americans.
In these ways and more, the New Dealdidn't fully live up to its promises.
Despite employing over 8 millionAmericans, unemployment never went

(06:36):
lower than 14%, and the US economywouldn't fully recover until the
country's mobilization for World War II.
But this bold campaign of progressivepolicies did empower unions
to start their own revolution.
In the coming decades, northernliberals, Black Americans, and
other working minorities unitedto fight discriminatory hiring.

(06:56):
In the process, they reshaped theDemocratic party, challenging its racist
leadership, and laying the groundworkfor an emerging civil rights coalition.
There were small lies, there were biglies, and then there's The Big Lie.
And that is a coordinated campaign ofblatant falsehoods to systematically
burn down and destroy institutions.

(07:18):
And we saw Trump do it in 2020 beforeour very eyes, undermining the legitimacy
of America's free and fair elections.
And we saw him do it last night on thebiggest stage, undermining the legitimacy
of America's most important safetynet for its citizens: Social Security.
There is a pattern to what Trumpis doing, and what he's goading

(07:38):
other Republicans into saying.
It is a pattern Trump establishedthroughout the 2020 election and its
aftermath, all the way up to January 6thand beyond: a deliberate attempt to alter
reality with lies about the balloting thatwere so audacious and so obviously untrue.
They're sending millions ofballots all over the country.

(08:01):
There's fraud.
They found them in creeks.
We caught them as you know, it'sfraudulent, dropping ballots, doing so
many things, nobody can even believe it.
Dead people voting.
It was a massive dump of votes.
And then you get to Detroit andit's like more votes than people.
We have a company that's very suspect.

(08:24):
Its name is Dominion.
This election was lost by the Democrats.
They cheated.
It was a fraudulent election.
They flooded the market.
Now, to be clear, thoseclaims were all false.
They were laughed out of court,dozens and dozens and dozens of time.
But Trump was obsessed with convincinghis fan base that the voting system

(08:46):
in the US, gold standard for freeand fair elections around the world,
was shot through with fraud -- I meanin numbers that were preposterous.
And it wasn't a new obsession.
I mean, look at these headlines.
"Donald Trump warns vote could berigged." "Trump ratchets up rigged
election claims, which Pence downplays.""Donald Trump's rigged election claims
raise historical alarms." All ofthese headlines were from the 2016

(09:10):
election campaign, the election Trumpultimately won in the electoral college.
He didn't challenge that outcome.
But once he lost in 2020, Trump went backto his old playbook, this well-established
playbook, particularly the myth ofdead people voting for Democrats.
This has been a fringe right wingtalking point for years, and Trump

(09:31):
elevated the lie to new prominence.
He used it in his quote, "perfect phonecall" with Georgia Secretary of State,
Brad Raffensperger, to pressure his fellowRepublicans into basically a coup: into
rigging the state's vote totals to favorTrump, even though he lost the state.
And Raffensperger debunked that lie in histestimony to the January 6th Committee.

(09:55):
The other thing, deadpeople, so dead people voted.
And I think the number isin close to 5,000 people.
And they went to obituaries, theywent to all sorts of methods to come
up with an accurate number, and aminimum is close to about 5,000 voters.

(10:16):
So secretary, did your office investigatewhether those allegations were accurate?
Did 5,000 dead people in Georgia vote?
No, it's not accurate.
And actually in their lawsuits,they alleged 10,315 dead people.
We found two dead people whenI wrote my letter to Congress
that's dated January 6th.
And subsequent to that, we found two more.

(10:37):
That's 1, 2, 3, 4 people, not4,000, but just a total of four.
Now, Trump's lies had a purpose, right?
The purpose is to destroy faithin the electoral system so as to
overthrow American democracy, todestroy that faith so that you can
destroy the institution itself.
And he rolled out the same play lastnight, as he blasted out his new Big Lie

(11:01):
about a beloved government program, onethat Republicans have long hated, but that
71 million Americans currently rely on.
We're also identifying shockinglevels of incompetence and probable
fraud in the Social Security Program.
Believe it or not, government databaseslist 4.7 million Social Security members

(11:23):
from people aged 100 to 109 years old.
It lists 3.6 million peoplefrom ages 110 to 119.
I don't know any of them.
I know some people that are ratherelderly, but not quite that elderly, but

(11:46):
we're gonna find out where that money'sgoing and it's not gonna be pretty.
Identical, right?
He sees dead people again.
The dead people voting in theGeorgia election, the dead people
getting checks from Social Security.
All the dead people committing fraud.
Suggesting that Americans who diedlong ago are still having their
Social Security checks delivered tosomeone and somehow cashing them in

(12:07):
their name even though they're dead,and there's a death certificate.
Again, think about it for 20 seconds.
It's obviously preposterous.
In fact, a government investigationlast year found that from 2015 through
2022, 7 years, of all the money theagency paid out in benefits, and that
is $8.6 trillion, a staggering sum,less than 1% was improper payments.

(12:29):
That's a really good record.
And most of the erroneous paymentswere overpayments to living people.
I mean, again, think about this, right?
In the same way you, if you think throughthe dead people voting at scale issue,
if you have ever had a loved persondie when they were on Social Security,
you know the checks don't keep coming.

(12:51):
Also, Social Security automatically stopspayments to people who are 115 years old.
Its capped there, which I'm sure is abureaucratic headache for the handful
of Americans who lived that long.
The version of the lie Trump and hisunelected co-president Elon Musk are
telling appears to be based on theirinability to read the data they collected.
Because Social Security's softwaresystem necessitates that some entries

(13:12):
with missing or incomplete birthdates will default to a reference
point of more than 150 years ago.
I don't know the origins ofthis, but here's the thing.
The fraud claims are bunk.
They're totally false.
It's just the Big Lie about voting, again.
Dead people voting.
But just like they did with the electionBig Lie, Republicans are amplifying it.

(13:35):
What he's finding with his algorithmscrawling through the data of
Social Security System is enormousamounts of fraud, waste, and abuse.
Tens of millions of deceasedpeople who are receiving fraudulent
Social Security payments.
More than 13 million people onthe records receiving benefits
who are over 119 years old.

(13:56):
I'm shocked enough.
Who do we have at 200 years old orwho do we have older than America
that's getting Social Security?
Everybody whose grandfather died andis still getting Social Security?
Gimme a break.
Yeah, they're lies.
They are lying.
Those are all lies.
It's not happening.
Okay?
Millions of people?
Millions?
Here's the thing.
They want to destroy Social Security.

(14:18):
They are coming for Social Security.
Musk has already installedsomeone from DOGE at the
Social Security Administration.
The agency has alreadyannounced enormous layoffs.
They're already closing offices.
This is gonna make thingsstart to break there.
Last weekend, the previous Social Securityadministrator, Martin O'Malley, warned
that Trump and DOGE were breaking thewhole agency, saying quote, "ultimately,

(14:40):
you're going to see the system collapse,and an interruption of benefits. I believe
you will see that within the next 30 to90 days. People should start saving now."
I don't know if that'sa credible prediction.
I really don't know.
Social Security is an amazingand robust system, right?
But it's an incredible statement,given that Social Security has never
missed a monthly payment in 90 years.

(15:01):
It is a program, like our voting system,that is incredibly free of fraud,
incredibly efficiently run, insanelypopular with the American populace,
just like free and fair elections.
Keep your eye on the ball here.
Right?
Huge tip off last night ofwhat they're about to do.
Trump knows all this.
Musk knows all this.
It's why they are telling TheBig Lie about Social Security,

(15:24):
just like the big election lie.
The objective now, as it was then, is tofabricate this elaborate, grotesque lie
about a cherished institution of Americangovernment, to sow enough fear, doubt,
and uncertainty among enough people thatTrump can get away with destroying it.
Empty shelves, an unusual scenein a normally stocked warehouse.

(15:45):
Radha Muthiah, President andCEO, Capital Area Food Bank:
What we were expecting to be about55 tractor trailers' worth of
food, and we just heard a couple ofweeks ago that half of those will
no longer be on their way to us.
These vacant racks stand out inWashington, D.C.'s Capital Area
Food Bank, a 123,000-square footbuilding where staff store inventory
and pull orders for delivery tomore than 400 regional partners.

(16:07):
Radha Muthiah is the foodbank's president and CEO.
She says the recent USDAcuts made a deep impact here.
Six hundred and seventy thousandmeals' worth of food that we now
have to scramble to look for othersources of food to be able to try and
at least partially bridge that gap.
I understand evaluating these programs.
Every administration does that.

(16:28):
We are happy to share data, clienttestimonials on the impact of these
programs on working adults, on childrenwho are able to focus more on school,
on seniors who can combine this withfood, with medication that they need.
In February, food banks nationwidebegan noticing canceled USDA
deliveries in their systems.
The funding freeze comes after the Trumpadministration cut two other programs that

(16:52):
provide aid to food banks and schools.
Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollinsdefended the cuts on FOX News.
But right now, from what we areviewing, that program was nonessential.
It was an effort by the leftto continue spending taxpayer
dollars that were not necessary.
Republican lawmakers are alsoconsidering cuts to the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program, orSNAP, previously known as food stamps.

(17:15):
Last year, about 42 millionpeople used the program.
In a statement to the NewsHour, a USDAspokesperson said: "The USDA has not
and will not lose focus on its coremission of strengthening food security,
supporting agricultural markets, andensuring access to nutritious foods."
The agency also noted a recent approvalof $261 million in purchases of fruits,

(17:39):
vegetables, and tree nuts to food banks.
This is an extraordinarilyserious moment for food banks
all across the United States.
Vince Hall is the chief governmentrelations officer for Feeding America,
a nationwide network of more than60,000 food pantries and distributors.
He says an end to pandemic era aid,rising inflation and stagnant wages has

(17:59):
led to record high demand at food banks.
Any reduction in the supply offood to food banks is going to
have very significant impactsfor people facing hunger.
Food banks were already maxingout their supply chains.
They were already going to everyconceivable donor, looking for
every conceivable pound of food andasking every community to support.
And so the reality is, we're going to beshort, we're going to be short on foods.

(18:22):
Just outside Washington, leadership atCatholic Charities' Alexandria food pantry
say they expect to see a drop in thevariety and quantity of their USDA orders.
It's food that U.S. Army Reserveveteran Philip Tinsley relies on.
Well, it's important for your ownhealth, but more important for, I
guess, some of your mental health,that you don't think, well since I'm

(18:43):
poor, I have to be treated like trash.
Or since I am poor, Ihave to eat bad food.
Or since I'm poor, I have to eat secondaryfood that other people don't want.
This is really what anyone wouldgo and get off the shelves.
And in this region, some food banksare starting to see more former
federal workers enter their doors.
Tens of thousands of federal employeeshave been fired since the Trump

(19:05):
administration took office, leaving somesearching for ways to make ends meet.
This is my first time goingto a food pantry as a client.
I have been a volunteer in the past.
This former federal contractorwas let go in mid-February and
recently lost her health insurance.
She spoke to the NewsHouranonymously for fear of retribution.

(19:26):
Coming here and admitting that Ineed some extra assistance took
a bit of courage to having neverbeen in this situation before.
I think it's important that peopletake a step back and take the politics
out of it for a second and realizethat these are real peoples' lives.
And the need spans far and wide, withsome of the highest food insecurity

(19:48):
rates in rural areas, like herein Rappahannock County, Virginia.
We do not have any grocery stores nearby.
So for a family to be able to goand get fresh produce from a grocery
store, they have about a 30-minutedrive anywhere within the county.
Rappahannock Food Pantry PresidentPenny Kardis says they will look to
their community to fill the gaps.

(20:09):
It would be a challenge for us.
We would have to — besides looking atour current donors, we would possibly
have to look at corporate donors.
That's a little bit difficult for us.
We have no businesses in thearea, so that would — we'd have to
look really far outside for that.
Sue Raiford has lived here for 30 years.
She says after a bad work accidentabout a decade ago, she could barely

(20:32):
walk and weighed only 75 pounds.
And when I went into the pantry,these people just surrounded me.
And they said, oh, wehave got to fatten you up.
Here, here, here.
And it's been that type of welcomingcompanionship that is always here for

(20:53):
everyone that walks through these doors.
It's that community Raiford fearswill be hurt as cuts are made to
the programs many here rely on.
Like myself, many, many seniors,we don't have means to go
out to the grocery stores.
We just can't do it.
I think without that support from thegovernment, many lives will be shattered.

(21:18):
And that's the heartbreak.
Medicare provides health care to 66million people who are 65 and older.
Medicaid serves 80 million low-incomepeople and disabled Americans.
How big a part of the overall U.S.health care system are these programs?
Well, it's less than half of thepopulation, but roughly half, and maybe a

(21:40):
little bit more, of expenditures becausethe people in these programs have some
of the more serious health care needs- higher rates of chronic diseases that go
along with being from low-income and maybehistorically underserved backgrounds,
higher rates of chronic diseases that goalong with aging, and the risk factors

(22:02):
for many conditions like cancer and otherhealth problems that go up with age.
And, Ari, I think it's important thatmaybe listeners understand that Medicare
has a much higher cost per personbecause of the age of the population.
Medicaid is actually one of themost, if you will, by cost, efficient

(22:23):
programs for women and children.
About half of the births in the UnitedStates are paid for by Medicaid.
So, Kathleen, when you saw Elon Musk poston X that Medicare and Medicaid were where
the big money - in his words - fraud ishappening, did that ring true to you?
Was that a big concern ofyours when you ran HHS?
Fraud, waste and abuse have alwaysbeen a focus of the federal agencies.

(22:48):
One of the things that happened withthe Obama administration was really
ramping up that kind of fraud-rooting-outactivities that we did in coordination
with the Department of Justice.
The notion that this is somehow anundiscovered area, that people who
are not at all familiar with theprograms or the way they operate are

(23:08):
going to suddenly be able to identifyand root out, is just flat-out wrong.
Mark, how did you react toseeing that post from Elon Musk?
Well, I totally agree with Kathleenthat this is an ongoing battle.
So I think that the real question forDOGE is can they find a way to get these
inappropriate programs out while, bythe way, Ari, at the same time, keeping

(23:31):
President Trump's promise that he is notgoing to cut or disrupt Medicare benefits?
Do you fear that this mission to eliminatewaste and fraud could be a pretext
for making broader sweeping changesto Medicare and Medicaid that are not
actually motivated by waste and fraud anddon't actually address waste and fraud?

(23:52):
The reason that I'd like totake them at their word, Ari, is
that the staff at CMS under...
CMS - the Centers for Medicare& Medicaid Services, yeah.
Centers for Medicare & MedicaidServices that oversees these
programs - they are in place now.
So Dr. Mehmet Oz - Dr. Oz has beennominated to be the next administrator.
He's still waiting for a confirmationhearing, so he's not there.

(24:14):
But in contrast to some of the otherpublic health agencies at HHS, there's
a whole team of people who are inpolitically appointed deputy roles,
working with the career staff, whohave a lot of experience with CMS
and the private sector on workingwith Medicare and Medicaid programs.

(24:37):
The CMS team has also brought in somelong-experienced career professionals,
including people who were there on thecareer staff working with me, including
the new chief operating officer atCMS, who has a tremendous amount of
nonpartisan experience in findingways to address fraud, waste and abuse

(25:02):
in Medicare and Medicaid programs.
So just so I understand, in other partsof the government, from the Treasury
Department to the Justice Department,we have seen career officials and
nonpartisan civil servants either firedand replaced or encouraged to leave.
You're saying the opposite appearsto be true at the Centers for
Medicare & Medicaid Services?
I think something distinct is happeninghere in that, you know, the DOGE team, as

(25:25):
I understand it, didn't just show up butis working directly, following some of the
guidance and the experience of the careerstaff and the political leadership to find
the effective ways of addressing fraudand abuse, and hopefully to modernize
some of the data systems there, too.

(25:48):
Kathleen, do you give themthe benefit of the doubt?
Do you trust them to take anuanced, data-driven approach?
Well, I'm encouraged by what Mark issaying about what his knowledge is about
the people who are coming into the agency.
But the proposals, Ari, that are outby, I would say, Republicans in Congress

(26:10):
are very much aimed, particularly in theMedicaid program, at cutting benefits.
They are not about fraud, waste and abuse.
You can't really, I would suggest,get the kind of money that has been
promised by DOGE even if you greatlyramp up fraud, waste and abuse.
You really have to go to the core ofthe benefits of these programs, and

(26:31):
that is where I'm very wary of whatthe proposals are coming forward.
So bottom line, if people whodepend on these programs want
to know, is my coverage safe?
- can I continue to count on the servicesthat I have counted on in the past?
We don't know where this is going to go.
What should people be watching?
Well, I would say for now, until theyare notified otherwise, assume the

(26:55):
services that you signed up for ifyou've just gone through Medicare open
enrollment or if you are a member ofyour state's Medicaid program, the
services, your provider, your drugs willcontinue to be provided - and use them.
I think it's very important, atthe state level particularly, that

(27:17):
legislators in red and blue statesunderstand that if Congress begins to
change Medicaid rules, payments aboutMedicaid programs, it will blow up
every state budget in this country.
Medicaid is one of the most importantparts of every state's budget.

(27:39):
They rely heavily on a sharedpartnership with the federal government.
And if those rules begin to change,everything else is at risk - economic
development, the ability tofund education, the tax system.
And states will be left in the reallyunfortunate position of having to
pick and choose who gets to keeptheir coverage and who doesn't.

(28:02):
As you have probably heard, SecretaryKennedy says that he can lose 20,000
workers, that's about 10,000 throughcuts, another 10,000 through retirements
and buyouts, without affecting theservices that the agency provides.
This is an agency you have run.
Do you think that can be done?
Well, unfortunately, Amna, to me,it's another indication of how

(28:24):
little Senator — Secretary Kennedyunderstands about this massive agency.
HHS is intertwined with stategovernments, with local governments,
with tribal governments.
And it's not just about losing somenameless, faceless bureaucrat in
Washington, D.C. What the massivelayoff will mean is that you lose

(28:47):
expertise, you lose timeliness, youlose an opportunity to get not only
the best products to market in a veryfast manner, but a food outbreak that
could occur anywhere in the country.
That's part of the FDA's job, is thatthey work with industry to quickly get
those foods off the market, so my kiddoesn't get harmed by the peanut butter.

(29:10):
Here in the heartland, in Kansas, we'regoing to lose health employees from the
CDC who have been working closely with ourlocal health offices to monitor outbreaks,
to keep vaccines up to date, to make surethat data is shared from state to state.
Those employees are all over the country.
They will suddenly be gone.

(29:31):
We're going to go into hurricaneand tornado season very shortly.
The first people on the ground whena disaster hits are from the CDC.
They make sure the water is safe,so people can go back and relocate.
We're talking about real impactat every point in the country.
And, unfortunately, after six weeks, myguess is Kennedy has not only not visited

(29:55):
the 13 divisions, but he really doesn'tknow or doesn't care what the people do.
We should note that these cuts willnow downsize the agency to some
62,000 positions that would remain.
Secretary Kennedy has also made aneconomic argument for these cuts.
He has said that HHS is thebiggest agency in the government.
He said it's twice the size ofthe Pentagon with $1.9 trillion,

(30:18):
suggesting that these job cutscould help to tame the budget.
Could they?
Do you see that point?
Most of the money that is in theHHS budget goes out the door.
It's the largest transfer of federalfunds to states through Medicaid,
childcare grants, mental healthblock grants, Agency on Aging, help

(30:41):
and support, home health services.
So, this is not money that's hiringpeople inside of D.C. offices.
It's money that really is essentialto health services in every state
in the country and in tribalgovernments throughout our land.
So, cutting the budget really isnot about people, as much as it's

(31:03):
about really harming the servicesthat go out to American folks.
If the personnel isn't there to makesure that Medicare payments go out
on time, to make sure that people canenroll and get the health insurance
that they're entitled, to make surethat the block grants go out on
childcare and mental health services,those services grind to a halt.

(31:24):
And it hurts everyday Americanswho desperately need the health
services that HHS helps to deliver.
We have also heard a top adviser toSecretary Kennedy make an argument that he
says the agency has basically been failingin its mission to the American public.
He points to rising rates of chronicdisease, to lower life expectancy

(31:44):
in recent years, and also a culturethat he claims is too quick to
medicate patients without addressingunderlying causes for the disease.
What's your response to that argument?
Well, I don't think there's any questionAmerica spends more and in some ways has
a lower return on investment than most ofour competitive Western European nations.

(32:08):
We have a very expensive health caresystem, again, not because of HHS.
Private insurers have a lot more overheadand a lot less return on the dollar.
There's been a real pivot since thepassage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010
to preventive services, to look at theunderlying causes of obesity and heart
disease, to invest in healthier foods,more exercise programs, programs that

(32:34):
actually do diabetes prevention, insteadof waiting and treating the disease.
I think those effortsare really important.
I'd love to see us double downon prevention services and pay
more to keep people healthy thantreat them when they're sick.
That's great.
But you can't tell the measles thatis now breaking out throughout the
country — we have our first measlescases in 15 years in Kansas, and

(32:58):
it's an alarming rate of spread.
You can't tell an infectiousdisease just to stop because
we're going to focus on diabetes.
We have to be able to walkand chew gum at the same time.
We have to be able to do multiple things.
Infectious diseases will come.
Disasters will come.
And chronic disease is here to stay.
So all those efforts arecritically important.

(33:21):
He is clearing out of agencies, fromwhat I can read and ascertain, the top
tier of expertise, not people who camein as politicals with one or another
administration, but people who had beenworking in these fields for a long time.
As you know, this is all part of theTrump administration's plan and agenda

(33:41):
to try to cut what they call bloatin the federal government work force.
You have led this agency, so Ihave to ask, if there were changes
you would suggest that need to bemade at HHS, what would those be?
What should change?
Well, I think any good CEO, privateor public company or government, looks

(34:04):
constantly at ways to be more efficient.
Can — are there redundant jobs?
Can you put people together?
I was amused by some of the suggestionsthat agencies work more closely together
that are in very different locations.
Some are in Washington,D.C. Some are in Atlanta.
And while that's an interestingtheory, it's very difficult

(34:26):
to conduct that mission.
But constantly reviewing what canwe do better and really keeping the
consumer front and center, the patientfront and center, what services can we
deliver more timely and more effectiveto the American public, not where my
grudges, where I want to dispute oldand long-term scientifically proven

(34:50):
vaccines, safety and effectiveness.
I mean, I think this agency is quickly,unfortunately, going off the rails
with leadership who has a very clearagenda, doesn't know really what
happens throughout the breadth of thisorganization, and is likely to do a lot
of unintended harm by slashing expertise,slowing down approvals of vaccines and

(35:16):
cosmetics and food and drugs, not beingable to respond in a timely fashion to
food outbreaks or natural disasters.
We're going to be in avery vulnerable situation.
I'm sick and tired of too many peoplein this town, Tom, they keep talking

(35:37):
about things in the future tense, likewhat may happen, the constitutional
crisis that's coming, and you'relike, "the constitutional crisis is
now!" The vice President of the UnitedStates of America, a lawyer who knows
constitutional law, he's saying thatthe president can ignore the judiciary,

(35:57):
that the president is freed from theconstraints of checks and balances.
That is an authoritarian takeover, thatis a constitutional crisis, and we need
everyone to take it that seriously.
At the same time, Tom,politicians aren't gonna save us.
The courts aren't gonna save us either.
The only thing that can stopa tyrant and the tyranny that

(36:20):
he's bringing is the people.
And so until the people are out in forceraising our voices together and really
shutting things down, I don't think we'regonna see as much bravery as we need.
The politicians are lagging indicators.
They get their bravery from thepeople, but first the people

(36:41):
have to organize and fight back.
And that's where the fire, thebravery and the opposition that
we need is gonna come from.
Yeah.
Bernie Sanders once made the point tome that the way politicians work is they
typically don't get out in front witha flag and say, "Hey, let's organize
a parade." Instead, they wait for aparade to naturally form, and when it's

(37:03):
big enough and vital enough and activeenough, then they jump in front of it
with a flag and say, this is my parade.
And so it's up to us to createthat parade, essentially.
So tell us what resources are overat socialsecurityworks.org or where
you recommend people go to learnhow to become part of that parade.
Definitely.
And I'll just add one thing that I learnedfrom Marion Barry, the mayor for life

(37:26):
from Washington DC who is also MLK'sleft hand in the civil rights fight,
he told me that the left often suffersfrom when the politicians want to join
the parade, the left is like, "no, youget outta here. You weren't with us
the whole time," and we can't do that.
We have to actually be like, "oh, great.
Wonderful.

(37:47):
You're all welcome.
We'll just even pretend you're herethe whole time," because that's how
we build power—we invite people in.
So, if you go to social securityworks.org,you follow us on social media, the pledge
campaign that we're running right now,we're demanding every member of Congress
pledge no cuts to Social Security,Medicare, Medicaid, and we're running

(38:08):
billboard trucks in every vulnerabletoss up Republican district where they
don't take the pledge, because at anyone time, we only need three Republicans
to stop this assault on our democracyand this theft of our earned benefits.
And there's what, 17 Republicanswho in are in that category?
Yes, it just in the cook report toss up.

(38:30):
And then, you know, there's leanRepublican, but these are extremely
tight races, where these guys are,you know, their political future
right now is very uncertain.
That's why I brought up Jeff Van Drew.
These are people who are sayingyou can't cut and destroy Medicaid.
Like, I'll definitely lose my job.

(38:51):
That's the calculus that wehave to make, we work with that.
We need these members to be more afraidof losing their jobs to their constituents
anger than they are of Donald Trump andthe wrath that he can bring on Twitter.
I try not to be emotional aboutthe work that I do, because

(39:11):
we try to get our facts right.
We do a ton of research.
We try to be as prepared as possiblefor these conversations, but I have
to say I was caught a little off guardbecause I did not know that America's
2 million plus federal workers alltake this very specific oath of office.
I actually just now, during ourbreak, LG, I went to the OPM website,

(39:33):
and I pulled it up and here it is.
I'm just about to readthe full oath of office.
It says, "I will support and defendthe constitution of the United States
against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
That I will bear true faithand allegiance to the same.
That I will take this obligationfreely without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion.
And that I will well and faithfullydischarge the duties of the office

(39:57):
on which I'm about to enter.
So help me, God."
Now all federal employees take this oath.
I did not know that.
LG, can you talk a little bit moreabout what taking that oath implies,
regarding the meaning of the workthat federal employees undertake?

(40:18):
You reading that oath, you can'tsee me, but I have goosebumps,
because it hits the same every time.
This is a serious job.
That phrase "to well and faithfullydischarge the duties of my office," it
doesn't matter who you are in the federalgovernment, if you are early career
talent who's just starting out in yourcareer, or maybe this is your first job
out of college, or if you are a 20-year,long-term veteran of the government, you

(40:43):
walk into that job every day knowing youserve the American people, and you swear
an oath to that—that is your mission.
The civil service, we were talkingabout this a little bit before the
break, but it is a mission orientedand mission-based organization.
I believe Arielle was saying we're notintended to work like a corporation.
We're not here to serve stakeholders,we're not here for profit margins.

(41:06):
We are here to serve a mission forthe American people, no matter what
the mission of each agency might be.
And taking that oath, to me, justreally solidifies how important that is.
And that's where you talk about thededication and we're all saying,
"we" still as civil servants, it'sbecause you swear an oath into a
group to take care of your neighbors.

(41:27):
And the people down the streetwho maybe don't agree with you,
but you're here to make sure thatthey get their services anyway.
And I think that's a reallyimportant and sacred calling.
Yeah.
And it's distinctly different fromprivate sector service, right?
No one asks you to swear in oath.
I can't speak for all private sectorcompanies, but it's definitely not common.

(41:48):
I've never, just wanna know that anyof the private sector companies I
worked at that's probably a good thing.
But yeah, because the jobthat we do is difficult.
We are often underfunded, we are oftenunderstaffed, but everybody still comes
in each day just determined to accomplishthat mission no matter what, and I
think the oath is the basis of that.
Getting back to some facts and figureshere, back in January, we actually

(42:12):
did a full hour on the history of theUnited States Civil Service, and even
though 2 million plus federal workersseems like a really big number, I think,
Arielle, as you'd mentioned before, it'sbasically less than 2% of the entire
civilian workforce in this country.
But even more interestingly, we spokewith a professor named Donald Moynihan

(42:33):
at the University of Michigan, andhe did an analysis where he said that
in the United States, A] our federalworkforce is in fact of the same,
if not smaller, than peer nations.
And on top of that, the federal governmentalready privatizes a lot of services,
and he did analysis and found out thatthe U.S. has something like three to

(42:54):
four private contractors for everysingle federal employee that we have.
For Arielle, the work that youwere doing, there's three to four
private contractors that are alsogetting paid for that same work.
I wanted to lay that out.
And Emily, let me turn to you, becauseyour work was so specialized at

(43:14):
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, I guessthe Trump administration, Elon Musk,
et cetera, would say, if we're alreadydoing that, why not further contract
out the work that you were doing?
And that may be a way to get moreefficiencies for the federal government.
What do you think?

(43:35):
Oh, I would argue that I wouldn't saythat would be a very cost saving measure.
In addition, should we have privatecompanies that are seeking a
bottom line, doing such importantwork for our American people?
I would argue not.
And we are talking to a lot offolks today and organizations that
I would say should remain public.

(43:55):
Yeah, I'll leave it at that.
Tell me more though.
I think we're all aware of howexpensive the Department of Defense is.
It's such a huge chunk of ourexpenditures, and if we used
more contractors, I would notexpect that number to go down.
When I watched the video that yousent me of that town hall that you

(44:17):
were part of, it wasn't just you,that was the thing that I noticed.
There were other speakers who cameup and everybody had their story.
This is so, so, so common.
The way that these stories touch peopleand the way that once people start
telling their stories, all of a suddenthey feel less alone, I feel like.
They feel empowered to be able to,not just connect with each other,

(44:40):
but advocate for each other and.
I'm wondering how you see thingsshift sort of from the beginning of
one of these sessions to the end.
What is it that brings peopletogether, makes them feel more
connected, compels them to action?
Well, when you have a clear articulationof what Medicaid does for somebody
or what it does for your community, Ithink it's easy to rally around that.
And the point of telling storiesisn't just to tell stories, right?

(45:02):
Great, we heard a story, let's go home.
Let's applaud whatever.
That's, that doesn't do anything.
Anything for anybody.
Stories are a tool.
Elected officials live in a bubble.
Part of it is self-created, part ofit's just natural part of the job.
And it's very easy to notexperience or not understand the
consequences of their actions.
And granted, there's a lot of otherforces at play, don't get me wrong.
The way that capital controlsthe government is not ignorable.

(45:25):
I think it's the fundamentalpart of this entire relationship.
You still gotta put these storiesonto the tip of the spear and
drive it into that bubble.
You gotta puncture it.
You gotta penetrate it.
And so a movement that puts thesepeople at the front of the line and
brings them to the... like one of thethings we're considering doing is taking
over one of our electeds offices formultiple days, just having a nonstop

(45:46):
cavalcade of people telling theirstories over and over and over again
to the elected or to staff continually.
And then you video it, youfilm it, you put it out there.
That does a couple of things.
One is, in the unlikely eventthe elected has a change of
heart, that's the way you do it.
Two is it demonstrates pent up demand, itde it demonstrates there are consequences
to your vote, both in the literal humansense and also in the electoral sense.

(46:08):
And then lastly, you builda movement around it.
I hate casting on my hopes to electoralpolitics for a lot of reasons, but it is
important to build that kind of force.
It isn't important to build that kindof power, and building it around people
like this, bringing 'em to the front ofthe line, sharing those stories, building
a coalition, this is a core part of it.
It's a thing that keeps peoplemotivated and keeps them coming back.
And so integrating that fully intothe force, I think is important.

(46:32):
There's so much more to buildingpower than just these kinds of
things, but they are a critical part.
You gotta do 'em.
That's something that isinteresting to me as somebody who
has a background in storytelling.
And this is somethingthat we have in common.
You did a lot of like backyard wrestlingstuff for a really long time, and so it
was about putting on a show, capturingnarratives, and engaging people.
But there is a distance, of course,between simply being able to engage people

(46:57):
and taking that engagement and using itto compel people to meaningful action.
And this is something that I'venoticed a lot in I don't know, call
it the liberal bubble of theater.
It's like, "oh, if we just all stand upand we say that's enough, then surely this
will stop it." So I'm so interested in theway that you bridge that gap, and I think

(47:19):
you are doing it in a meaningful way.
I think that, getting people to telltheir stories is one thing, but then
finding the connective piece to have thatstory be something that reaches other
people, that compels them to do something.
How do you make that link?
The purely operational nuts and boltspart of it is we have a series of
forms floating around these town halls.

(47:40):
When people feel compelled bythe story, they can sign up.
We bring them into a team that'sentirely member directed and they
plan the things they wanna do.
My job and the jobs of my coworkersis to keep them engaged and help build
out things, help build out optionsto education, et cetera, but it's
up to these people who come to thesetown halls and feel affected, want
to move to act, to build out theseteams and do things that contribute

(48:03):
to this broader building out of power.
So I talked about taking overthe elected offices, that's
the kind of thing they can do.
Build this momentum, bring more folks in.
The stories are an activationtool as well as a thing you
bring to the front of the line.
People hear these stories and say,fuck it, I wanna get involved,
whether they have a story or not.
It's very easy to chalk things up toalienation by and large, and I think
that's largely correct, but we don'tunderstand how we live even within

(48:27):
the neighborhood that we exist in.
This is a one of the rare things thatreassembles us into understanding
ourselves as being part of acohesive whole, to an extent.
It's only moments like that that youcan get people to sign the dotted
line and bring 'em out to a meetingand bring 'em to do something.
And a good organizer, which I'm notsaying I am, I'm a healthcare guy, but
a good organizer can tie those thingstogether into a variety of clauses.
Wisconsin right now has a state electionfor Supreme Court, which happens on

(48:52):
Tuesday, which I don't feel amazing about.
We had a big one two years ago.
Democrats won it, got us new votingmaps, which have changed the entire
composition of the legislature.
We've got another one of those comingup as well as a case about Act 12,
which is the Scott Walker Bill thatdestroyed public sector unions.
And so this election will determine theshape of the state for years to come.
And a lot of people that came to thesetown hall meetings are being turned out

(49:14):
to go knock doors, and not all of 'em do.
It's not a, it's not like in a completelymutable population, but it's part of
putting people into a broader coalition.
If you share this worldview, if youfeel affected by these things, here's
all these options available to youto go out and do something with it.
And people do react to that.
People do respond.
It's the job of my coworkers to helpput together those ties, to bring
people in for multiple causes andkeep 'em there for the long term.

(49:34):
We've just heard clips starting withTED Ed exploring Franklin D. Roosevelt's
New Deal detailing its comprehensivepolicies to combat the Great Depression.
All In with Chris Hayes discussed howTrump employed a strategy of spreading
blatant falsehoods to undermine trustin democratic institutions like the
electoral system and Social Security.
Consider This covered the significantcosts and challenges of Medicare

(49:58):
and Medicaid, including fraudprevention efforts and concerned
over potential cuts to benefits.
The PBS NewsHour discussed thesevere impact of USDA funding
cuts on food banks across the US.
Another clip from The PBS NewsHour focusedon the potential negative effects of
Secretary JFK Jr.'s plan to cut 20,000workers from Health and Human Services.

(50:20):
The Hartmann Report discussed theurgent need for grassroots activism to
counteract the current constitutionalcrisis and authoritarian threats,
highlighting the role of mobilizedcitizens and the necessity of
inclusive political organizing.
On Point delved into the significanceof the oath taken by American Federal
workers, highlighting their mission-drivenduty to serve the American people

(50:42):
and the unique challenges they facecompared to the private sector.
And finally, The Worst Of All PossibleWorlds discussed how sharing personal
stories at town hall meetings can create astrong sense of community, drive advocacy,
motivate political action, and integrateindividuals into broader movements.
And those were just the Top Takes.
There's a lot more inthe Deeper Dive sections.

(51:03):
But first, a reminder that this show isproduced with the support of our members,
who get access to this show ad free, aswell as early and ad-free access to our
freshly launched other show, SOLVED!
That's all caps with an exclamationpoint, which features our team of
producers discussing a carefullycurated selection of articles and
ideas to then solve some of the biggestissues of our day in each episode.

(51:26):
Members get the podcast of SOLVED!
free each week without adsbefore it goes out on the Best
of the Left YouTube channel.
We also do a special members-onlysection at the end of the show.
So to support all of our work that goesinto Best of the Left and have SOLVED!
delivered seamlessly to the newmembers-only podcast feed that you'll
receive, sign up to support theshow at BestOfTheLeft.Com/Support

(51:48):
(there's a link in the show notes),through our Patreon page, or from
right inside the Apple Podcast app.
And as always, if regular membership isn'tin the cards for you, shoot me an email
requesting a financial hardship membershipbecause we don't let a lack of funds stand
in the way of hearing more information.
Now if you have a question or wouldlike your comments included in the
show, you can leave a voicemailor send us a text at 202-999-3991.

(52:12):
We're also findable on the privacyfocused messaging app Signal at the
handle bestoftheleft.01, or you cansimply email me to Jay@BestOfTheLeft.Com.
Now, as for today's topic, thereare so many potential ways to come
at today's topic that I found itgenuinely difficult to narrow it down.

(52:33):
Ultimately, I've decidedto go with the big picture.
Now, the moral philosophy that underpinsso much of the reasoning behind the
conservative desire to deconstructsocial safety nets is, I think, as
immoral and anti-human as anythingthat exists within the Overton window

(52:55):
of acceptable political argumentation.
And of course, there's a dualmotivation going on here.
One is the simple capitalistic greed thatdrives the rich to want to extract as
much as humanly possible from the poor.
But that is still, thankfully,outside of the Overton window,
so we don't hear much about it.

(53:16):
That motivation stilllies beneath the surface.
But the other element has its roots inthe deeply oppressive Protestant work
ethic that has haunted the New Worldsince before the founding of the nation.
But let's actually work backwards to that.
Now, it's a truism that no onelies on their deathbeds regretting

(53:38):
that they hadn't dedicated moreof their time to their work.
But that idea is also backed upby hospice nurses with decades of
experience speaking with dying peopleas they reflect on their lives.
Looking back, they see more clearlythe kinds of truths that we all already
basically know, but tends to ignore.

(54:00):
The point of life is to love and be loved,connect with those around us, contribute,
make a difference, et cetera, et cetera.
Those who have spent their livesmaking lots of money frequently
do so at the expense of allthose things that really matter.
They've neglected or actively cut offrelationships over money and bitterness.

(54:23):
They've failed to apologize and reconnectfor reasons they can't even remember.
And they end up ending their liveswealthy, but alone and unhappy.
This is the predictable result of asociety that prizes work and personal
wealth over community and connection.

(54:44):
But look, humans are complicated.
We also get joy and satisfaction outof accomplishments, out of having
ambitions and working toward them.
So the ideal society wouldn'tbe one of infinite leisure.
There's a balance to be struck here.
We do get value out of doing work.
Now, the conservative arguments againstsocial safety nets and comfortable

(55:08):
retirements that have made their wayinto the Overton window of acceptable
thought, revolve around this ancientbut backward idea that because putting
in work and effort is fundamental tohuman survival, and that we do derive
some satisfaction from work well done,that it must be the ultimate good, and

(55:30):
practically the only thing worth pursuing.
And at worse, that it is practicallya sin to waste time on leisure
when there's work to be done.
All of this has metastasized intoa culture that is overworked and
burnt out while reaping fewer rewardsthan the same work would've provided

(55:50):
several decades ago, all while theinsufficiency of our social safety
net has forced people to accept thisbasic fate of "work or die" because it
feels like there aren't other options.
The conservative argument goesthat safety nets reduce the
motivation for people to work.
It's the old "safety net becomes ahammock" argument, which would be

(56:13):
bad for society, so the best thingto do for everyone, but also just
coincidentally the best thing to do forvery rich people who profit the most
from people's labor, is to restrictor eliminate social benefit programs.
But let's use another metaphor.
And I need to give credit to ProducerDeon who said this on a recent

(56:34):
episode of SOLVED!, our new showon the Best of the Left YouTube
channel that you might have heard of.
Deon said that instead of focusingon a mostly imaginary group of people
who might misuse a social safetynet, let's think about the actual
intended purpose of a safety net.
Now, a safety net is something youmight put under a tightrope, so imagine

(56:56):
yourself walking on a tightrope.
Would you feel more or less free ifthere were or were not a safety net?
In which scenario would you feelmore emboldened to take risks?
If what we want is a dynamic society inwhich people feel empowered to follow
their passions, rather than settle forwhatever they can get out of desperation,

(57:19):
the existence of a safety net iswhat allows people to take chances.
To strive for somethingbeyond their immediate grasp.
The ability to fall knowing that we willbe able to get back up is the only thing
that allows for the kinds of risks thatcan lead to greater things for people
financially, as well as creating moreof a cushion, that allows more room for

(57:44):
people to create for themselves the kindsof balance between work and the rest
of life that will help us avoid thosedeathbed regrets that are all too common.
Without a social safety net, the onlypeople with the kind of security to take
risks are those who already have money.
They can provide their own safety net.
Now, why would a society that claims tobelieve in the entrepreneurial spirit

(58:07):
want to limit themselves to entrepreneurswho get their starts because they were
born into relative wealth, while thepoor end up destined to remain so?
Once you dissect the acceptablereason that they give for wanting
to cut social programs, that it'sultimately good for everyone, you see

(58:28):
that the high-minded arguments forthis greater good and personal virtue
are all built on bullshit, and leadpeople into the lives of "the grind."
They end up working out of necessity,but believing that it's virtuous.
And often translating that sense ofvirtue related to work into a life
that neglects what the dying come torealize is the real value of life.

(58:54):
So if that reason crumbles to dustwhen challenged, all we're left with,
really, is the greed of the wealthy,who stand to profit more if they can
continue to either convince or forcepeople to work the maximum hours
for the minimum pay and benefits.
The math is not complicated to understand.
And people absolutely hate itbecause we all intrinsically get

(59:18):
the balance that is required betweennecessary and, yes, even gratifying
work, and all of the other parts oflife that are even more important.
Some amount of work is fine.
Too much work is too much.
And their goal in cutting socialsafety net programs is to make "too

(59:38):
much" feel like a virtuous necessity.
Don't let them fool you.
And in the meantime, reach outto that friend of yours who you
haven't had the time to connectwith because you've been too busy.
And now we'll continue to divedeeper on three topics today.
Next up, section A. Social Securityfollowed by section B, general

(59:59):
Cuts and Section C, Medicaidand Health and Human Services.
I'm not sure most people really understandsocial security, and I think it's
important for people to understand it.
I view Social Security Systemas I. An insurance program.
Um, how far, how far wrong am I on that?

(01:00:24):
And you got it right.
Actually, a lot of people think of itas a retirement investment program.
Apparently, uh, our friendElon thinks of it that way.
that's not what it, what it is.
I'm all for people savingmoney, uh, and having.
All kinds of investment accounts,but particularly 4 0 1 Ks and

(01:00:44):
health savings accounts and so on,that's not what social security is.
Social Security, as my grandfather said,is insurance against, uh, destitution
in old age or in disability, uh, orfrom the loss of a, uh, of a parent.
Uh, it's fundamentally, it's justlike your homeowner's insurance.

(01:01:06):
Your auto insurance or even yourhealth insurance, you buy insurance.
You spread out the risk.
When you need to, uh, need payments eitherbecause you're of your age or because of
a disability, uh, or something like that.
The people who currently arepaying premiums pay for that, but

(01:01:26):
it's not a Ponzi scheme as Elon.
Decided to call it, uh, that indicatedhe either doesn't understand what
social security is, or he doesn'tunderstand what a Ponzi scheme is.
I, I also look at it as a,besides being an insurance
program, it, it's also a contract.
Um, I don't want to take it to thelevel of it being a social contract,

(01:01:48):
but I think it's a contract whereif you pay in and you work the
requisite number of years, which is10 years or 40 quarters, uh, upon.
A certain time, you then are able to,uh, receive some retirement benefits.
So I, I see it as kind of twofold.
Insurance and contractual Yes, no.

(01:02:10):
So yes, social security, uh, a lotof people, uh, kind of shy away from
the term social contract, but it's.
You as a worker and other workersrepresented by the government, basically,
uh, you pay your fair share, you expectto get your fair share of benefits.

(01:02:34):
Yeah, so, so, so there's sortof these dual elements of it.
Now, I know that a lot of people are, arepretty freaked out, the Republicans have
made, and, and matter of fact, presidentTrump in his, uh, speech to the joint
session of Congress made that, um, commentthat there were like, I don't know, three.
5,000 people over the age of 150.

(01:02:57):
Did you watch that speech?
And if you did, I'd love to know whatyour reaction was to it, because I
think what the president was sayingclearly, clearly was misleading.
Well, I did watch the speech and I'm notgonna comment on, uh, my views overall.
I'll just on social security.
Yeah.
Uh, someone misled, someone misled himon that, he seemed to say that there

(01:03:19):
was this large number of people get overgetting benefits over the age of 150.
There is nobody gettingbenefits in that category.
First of all, uh, when you reach a,when the records show that you reached
115, your benefits automatically stopand they will reach out to you and say.
Show us that you're still alive.

(01:03:40):
Okay.
Yeah.
Gotcha.
Okay.
So it's just mechanically impossible.
But secondly, the reason it appearsthat way, and this is the problem
with what the kids and I do meankids, um, if you consider a 19, 20, 20
1-year-old a kid, which I do, uh, uh.
When the kids go in and don't reallyunderstand something, they make mistakes

(01:04:03):
and they have not had enough experience tosay, wait a minute, that doesn't compute.
They're, they also don't take the time,you know, the, the Silicon Valley, uh,
thing work fast and break things well,they work fast and they don't ask,
uh, well, why would it show up thatthere're that many people that old?

(01:04:25):
Well, it's because.
Social Security had one of thefirst totally computer based
systems for doing people's benefits.
It's written in a computer languagethat was invented 50 or 60 years ago,
invented actually by a team led by thefirst female admiral ever, Grace Hopper.

(01:04:45):
Uh, and.
There was no setting in thatlanguage to insert the date when
people, uh, when people were born.
So they made up a date, uh, as adefault, and they picked a date
sometime in the 1880s so thatpeople wouldn't get confused.
Yeah, yeah.
There was no default date.

(01:05:07):
If you had a date, you, it wasokay, but there was no default date.
Yeah.
So, so one would characterizethat, and I've characterized it.
To the dismay of some of mylisteners as in effect what
would be called a coding error.
It, it, that's exactly what it wa was.
And it's not that it was somebody'sfault, it's that the code at that
point did not allow for a default date.

(01:05:29):
And so the, all the people whohad signed up for Social Security
before there was computer codewere listed on this date in 1880.
Okay.
Uh, and.
It doesn't impact benefits at allbecause as I say, there's automatic
cutoffs and in general, social securityhas the master death list where almost

(01:05:52):
every death that occurs in the UnitedStates is reported to Social Security.
I. Right.
I learned that the other dayas I was doing some research on
it, I did not realize it's anobligation of funeral homes to
file a report of someone's passing.
I was unaware of that.
that's absolutely right.
That is a major source.
But state, uh, medical examinersand departments of public health

(01:06:14):
are also required to report.
Okay.
Now I assume that if there's some peopleliving in the, the wiles of Montana
and someone passes away and there'sno, uh, I, I, I guess it's conceivable
that someone could be buried out onthe back 40, um, and a, and a and a
nice, um, you know, headstone there.

(01:06:35):
But, but the governmentwould not know that.
So there, there could be, theoreticallya handful of people here or there,
but those people, if they weregetting social security checks.
Every month for someone who hadnot been reported, had passed, and
if they were crazy enough to cashthose checks, they're involved.

(01:06:55):
They're, they're, they're committing fraudagainst the government cashing a check on
behalf of someone other than themselves.
Correct.
I. They would end up in, infederal court charged with a crime.
I wish I had better news, but, um,basically as, uh, as bad as you
think it, uh, is, it's, it's worse.
Um, the damage that Elon Musk and hisDoge goons have done, the Social Security

(01:07:19):
Administration is truly catastrophic.
We're already seeing service disruptionscurrently, and those service disruptions
will just get worse and worse and worse,both in terms of cascading failures.
So the failures building on eachother, uh, and the fact that
they're not stopping, right?
They keep.
Putting in new things, uh, tocollapse the system even faster.

(01:07:42):
For example, um, closing offices, firingpeople, and then disallowing a lot
of services to be done by the phone.
Mm-hmm.
Pushing more people into the offices,which will overwhelm the offices.
The offices were already creakingunder the weight of just 10,000 baby
boomers, uh, entering the systemevery single day, uh, while at 50

(01:08:06):
year historic low staffing levels.
That's before Elon Musk, um,got there with his chainsaw.
Um, so these are surgicallydesigned changes that will push
millions of people into a systemthat they are closing offices.
They've already closed 45 orscheduled 45 for immediate.

(01:08:29):
Um, and over the mid and long term,you know, they have instructed
GSA to close all of the offices.
Um, they've pushed out thousands ofworkers or fired thousands of workers.
Uh, but over the mid or long term, uh,they have a memo, uh, that's been put
together to reduce the workforce by 50%.

(01:08:49):
Uh, you know, and then, uh, theDoge guys, Elon Musk, they're
like, oh, don't worry, we're justgonna replace everything with ai.
What they're saying is you're notgonna be able to get through to
anyone, uh, when your check doesn'tget deposited or doesn't show up.
Uh, and you know, if you don'tbelieve me, like go listen to, uh,

(01:09:10):
what lutnick, the Commerce secretary,why'd he go on television and say, you
know, oh, if his mother-in-law didn'tget her check, she wouldn't complain.
The only people who would complain abouta missing a a payment are fraudsters.
I mean, you understandwhat's going on there.
Yeah.
Tom, they're trying to scarepeople, uh, into not, uh, you know,

(01:09:32):
reaching out if they don't see theirdeposits, they're getting people
ready to not receive their benefits.
And then at the confirmation hearingfor the Social Security Commissioner
Bisignano, who by the way, uh, it runsa monopoly payment processing company

(01:09:52):
that is just happens to be perfectlyset up, uh, to take over some of the
functions of, uh, a social security systemthat's been smashed to smithereens by.
Uh, Elon Musk.
Wow.
But at his, uh, confirmation hearing,you know, uh, Senator Warren asked
him, you know, if somebody doesn'tget, uh, their check or, or, or

(01:10:17):
is $5,000 are removed from theirbank account, which has happened
already, you know, is that a benefit?
Cut?
And Bisignano was like, Idon't know what to call that.
Mm-hmm.
Uh, and otherwise just, you know,denying and diminishing, uh, you
know, what is actually going on.

(01:10:38):
And then just straightforwardlying to Senator Wyden.
Uh, when Senator Wyden asked,are you working with the Doge
wrecking crew and Elon Musk?
And he is like, no, I'm not.
And he dub he asked again to makehim say it twice, and then I.
Revealed that he has, uh, whistleblowerinformation that in fact, Bisignano is

(01:10:59):
working hand in glove with Elon Musk.
Uh, and so this is a commissioner who,if confirmed, will just accelerate the
destruction, uh, at Social Security.
So, um, I wish that I could tellpeople that, you know, it's all
gonna be okay, that your benefitsare secure, but it's, it's not.

(01:11:19):
Um, and we need a massive response,uh, from the American people to not
just stop, but to reverse course.
Because what's already been donewill lead to service disruptions.
Well, they've already laid offa whole bunch of people, right?
They haven't, they've closed officesand I don't wanna get like, too into it.
If you go to our social media,you'll find enormous number of

(01:11:42):
news stories that have dug into it.
But Tom, a lot of it is actually they,they went in, uh, and they, uh, shut
down offices or they combined offices.
Uh, massive amount of reorganizationin a way that, um, centralized power,
uh, that now the Doge people, the goonsthemselves, are set to take over those

(01:12:04):
offices with the express, uh, purposesaying, you know, oh, well we don't
need people, uh, to help beneficiaries.
We don't need people to answer questions.
Um, they're gonna, we'regonna replace this with ai.
And it's just, that's bs, right?
Yeah.
They're just, they're making things up.
And what they're really doing, and Ithink it's pretty clear to everyone,

(01:12:28):
uh, is they're raking the system.
They're destroying social security.
They're causing the problem so thatthey can then throw up their hands
and say, now you niv need to giveus the legislative authority to act
with a simple majority in the Senate.
And that's how they get theirhands on our benefits, which are
otherwise, um, protect that the big.

(01:12:50):
Our benefits.
Right, right.
That's how they, they cut ourbenefits for everybody, uh,
and get their hands on the, so
the Social Security Trust fund,which was created by Reagan in what,
86? 83. The pre-funding of this trust fundwas done in 83 under the Reagan reform.
Thank you.
But trust funds have long been apart of the Social security system.

(01:13:10):
The current Social Security Trustfund is sitting on, uh, over
two and a half trillion dollars.
And that is gonna, you know,serve us well until 2035.
And then it's going to go back tosomething like a pay as you go system.
'cause most of the boomerswill have passed on.
Um, and, but the problem is thatstarting in 2035, we're gonna see some

(01:13:31):
significant shortfalls in revenue.
And the easy solution to thatis to have billionaires pay
the exact same percentage.
Of income tax for social securitythat bus drivers and people
who work at McDonald's do.
And that is something that isabsolutely intolerable to billionaire
Donald Trump, the 14 billionairesin his cabinet, and the billionaires

(01:13:52):
who fund the Republican party.
So, uh, in order to prevent the simplesolution of simply billionaires having
to pay into social security taxes, itlooks to me like they're going to try to
break social security so that they willthen have a rationale to privatize it,
hand it off to whichever big bank givesthe largest contribution to Republicans
in Congress and be done with it.

(01:14:12):
Is that a, a reasonableanalysis in your mind, Alex?
It is.
I have one thing to just add, whichis when the trust fund was done in,
in 83, it actually projected outsolvency till 2060, which is when
the baby boom generation will lifeexpectancy really and truly dead.
Yeah.
Yes.

(01:14:32):
But what's happened is that we'velost 30 years of that projected
solvency because of the billionaires.
Because since 1980 and the greatdivergence, which I know you
talk about a lot, when all theproductivity gains and wages have
gone to people above the cap, right?
So people only pay in on the first$176,000 of income right now.

(01:14:57):
And since the eighties, all of themoney has gone to people above that.
So they're not paying any of thatnew, that money into social security.
That's what caused it to move downfrom 2060 to 20 into the 2030s.
Uh, so the billionaires caused the problemnot just by not paying the same rate as

(01:15:19):
the rest of us on all of their income,but also by gobbling up all of the income.
Social Security has beenoverwhelmingly popular and under
vehement attack from some quarterssince it began and for decades.
Elite News Media have generateda standard assessment.

(01:15:39):
It's the most popular program.
Hence the third rail of politicking,and also based on willful
misreading of how it works, it'sabout to be insolvent any minute.
The latter notion sittingalongside corporate media's
constant refrain that private isalways better than public, just.

(01:16:01):
Because like efficiency and all that.
Now in this, frankly, wild onlylosers care about caring for
one another and shouldn't therichest just control everything?
Moment.
Social security is on thechopping block for real.
Still as ever.
The attack is rooted in disinformation,but with a truly critical press

(01:16:26):
corps, largely missing in action.
Myth busting might not be enough.
A lot of us are in a kind of blurry,holy heck, is this really happening
mode, but titrating out what is actuallyhappening today is important set aside

(01:16:46):
from whether courts will eventuallyrule against it or how it might
play out in what is happening News.
I'm reading at Truth Out via Bloombergthat three individuals representing
private equity concerns have shown upat the Social Security Administration.

(01:17:08):
How weird is that?
What can that possibly mean?
It's horrible, and if you can believeit, it is even worse as soon as.
Donald Trump wasinaugurated on January 20th.
The Doge guys, the Dogeboys, was young as 19.
Were swarming all over the SocialSecurity Administration, as

(01:17:31):
you said in your introduction.
There has been a small group ofpeople completely outta touch
who wanted to do away with socialsecurity from the beginning.
They've always been defeated,but unfortunately, they now are
in control of the White House.
It's Donald Trump.
It's.
Despite all his lies in the campaignthat he wouldn't touch Social

(01:17:52):
Security, he proposed cuts in everyone of his budgets in his first turn.
It's Elon Musk, who unbelievablycalled it the biggest pom d scheme
in history, which is such a slander.
And it's Russell Roy, who is the directorof the Office for management and budget.
Architect of Project 2025, and whatwe're seeing is Project 2025 on steroids.

(01:18:15):
So you've got private venturepeople there, you have Doge, guys
stealing our data all in an effort toundermine our social security system.
Well, the line is that, oh no.
They're not attacking social securityitself, just fraud within it.

(01:18:35):
Now, the bad faith is palpable, but whatis your response to that notion that it's
really just the fraud that's under attack.
Well, as, as you said, I wrote abook called The Truth About Social
Security, and one of the zombie liesis one of the ones you mentioned,
but they all say, oh, this privatesector is so much more efficient and
so much better, and blah, blah, blah.

(01:18:58):
Actually, social security isextremely efficiently run.
Less than about a half a penny of everydollar spent is spent on administration.
The other more than 99cents is back in benefits.
That's so much.
More efficient than you find with401k for private sector insurance.
Or you can get 15, 20% administrativecosts and hidden fees and so forth.

(01:19:23):
And that's also with ipropayments, which not just fraud.
There are a lot of.
Overpayments Underpayments, whichwe've done because Congress has made
it also difficult to administer andsome of it's just impossible to avoid.
But the 99.7%, 99.7% of Social Securitybenefits are paid accurately to the right

(01:19:45):
people on time in full and about 0.3%.
And again, there's much more.
Payments in the private sector, butat that 0.3%, the overwhelming amount
of that are what are called improperpayments, overpayments and underpayments.
So for example, social security requiresto get your benefit, you have to be, have

(01:20:08):
been alive every day of the month before.
Now I think that's wrong.
I think you should get.
Proportion of payments, butthat's not how the law works.
So if you die on the last day ofthe month and you get your payment
on the third day of the followingmonth and the money is put in your
account, that's an overpayment.
Now, it doesn't just sit there as soonas the federal government realizes that

(01:20:31):
the person that died the last day, theygo in immediately, usually within a
day or two and take that money back.
But that.
Mainly overpayments.
Underpayments fraud is vanishinglysmall, and the way that fraud is caught
is first we have an Inspector General.
Donald Trump fired the Social SecurityAdministration, inspector General

(01:20:54):
as soon as he got into office andfrontline workers, and they've been.
Firing and and inducing allkinds of workers out, who are the
ones who would catch the fraud.
So although they say they'regoing after fraud, waste,
and abuse, they are creating.
So much waste.
They are abusing the workforce andthrough that, the American people and

(01:21:16):
they are opening the door to fraud.
Unfortunately.
Well, you know, I have seen, uh,leftists take issue with the.
It's my money idea on SocialSecurity because actually it's
an intergenerational program.
Now, choosing that as a point ofemphasis in the current context is

(01:21:37):
a choice that I have thoughts about.
But do you see meaningful confusion about.
Whose money is at stake here andwhether workers paying into it
today are truly entitled to it.
Here's where the confusion
is.
I don't think there'sconfusion on that point.
I think most Americans, which is whythe program is so wildly popular.

(01:22:00):
Recognize that these arebenefits they earned.
It is deferred compensation you,it is part of your earnings, so you
have your current cash compensation.
You have deferred compensation inthe form of pensions, whether it's
a pension sponsored by the employeror 401k, or a defined benefit

(01:22:20):
plan, and US social security.
You also have what are calledcontingent benefits, which are
disability insurance survivors benefits.
Those were all earned.
What is the misunderstanding?
And this is again, people likeElon Musk and others who are just
spreading lies about this program,or, oh, there are all these.

(01:22:42):
Immigrants are the undocumentedpeople are stealing our money.
That is a lie.
Those people who are undocumentedare unable to receive Social Security
and even when they be, if they becomedocumented and can show that they have
made contributions, they still don't.
And I think this is wrong,but they still don't get the
benefits they have earned, but.

(01:23:03):
Americans are here paying in.
It is an earned benefit.
And when Elon Musk and Donald Trumpsay, oh, there's fraud and we're
gonna cut the benefits, they arecutting your benefits and people
should keep hold of their wallets.
More than half of the people whoreceive social security count on

(01:23:24):
it to put groceries on the tableand keep a roof over their heads.
We're talking about people in theirseventies, in their eighties, in their
nineties, people who often have mobilitychallenges, people, people who struggle.
And what's happening right nowat the Social Security office
is they're saying in effect.
Nobody really to answer the phones, sothat means you gotta find somebody to

(01:23:48):
get you down to a Social Security office.
Oh, whoops.
They closed that Social securityoffice, so you gotta travel, what,
two hours, three hours to be able toget to another Social Security office.
When you get there, we're hearingabout lines that are 50 people long,
with two people in the Social Securityoffice to try to help answer questions.

(01:24:11):
Office closes.
Before people even have an opportunity toget up and ask their questions, and that
is repeated over and over and understandthis, social security is not charity.
It's not some giveaway.
It is something thatpeople earned throughout.
All of their working years on a Promisefrom America that said, you pay into

(01:24:36):
that system and then when you retire,you can count on those benefits solid.
They will be there for you and instead.
What Elon Musk and Donald Trumpour co-presidents are doing right
now is effectively cutting thebenefits that people were promised.

(01:24:58):
And they are making peoplesuffer all across this country.
It is wrong.
Yeah.
Well, maybe some of 'emshould find a billionaire as a
son-in-law and they can be fine.
Yeah.
They won't have to worry about the checkthat would, that would help them out.
Did you get any sense fromuh, Mr. Bisignano today?
That he would exert any independentcontrol over this, that he would
be responsive or do you see him asessentially a kind of doge stew Jaic.

(01:25:22):
You know, look, we raised, Iraised the question directly.
I pointed out the places where ifyou make enough cuts in service, you
have effectively cut the benefits.
And we all know you can't cut thosesocial security benefits without
coming right here to Congress.
Right?
Only Congress can cut the benefits,but you can backdoor cut them.

(01:25:45):
And he admitted that.
Yep.
That is the law.
And so cutting.
For example, the number of peoplewho work at the Social Security
Administration can turn out tobe effectively a cut in benefits.
So I said, will you at least commit torehiring the people who've been cut, get
social security back up to the level?
At least where it was frankly,still wasn't enough, but

(01:26:08):
at least where it was and.
All we heard is blah, blah, blah.
Think about it.
But he did not make that commitment.
And why?
Because he is in league with DonaldTrump and with Elon Musk to cut
Social Security for millions of peopleacross this country who depend on it.
The millions of people who don'thave a billionaire son-in-law.

(01:26:31):
You know,
one of the most unnerving storieswe see in the first two months
is the use of this agency.
To, to, as a sort of weaponizedpolitical tool against citizens.
I wanna, I wanna just ask youabout this, because there was
this story in Maine mm-hmm.
Where basically the Governor ofMaine challenged the president on,
uh, one of his executive orders.
They had a kind of, you know,testy exchange in the White House.

(01:26:52):
And then subsequently Maine found outthat the program that automatically
enrolls your newborn in the hospitalwith a social security number had been
terminated with no notice, and you nowhad to go with your newborn to an office
to get that social security number.
And it looked like it was a reprisal.
And now we have confirmation.
The man who's running Social Security,Leland Eck, who's sort of the Doge

(01:27:12):
officer there, said he had orderedthe move to cancel this after watching
Janet Mills means Democratic GovernorClash with Mr. Trump at the White House.
I was ticked at the Governorof Maine for not being real
cordial to the President, Mr.
Eck said.
Mm-hmm.
Mm-hmm.
And then he said that he owned itand he was, you know, he, he was
sorry and he, he won't do it again.

(01:27:33):
But I am astonished this happened.
And do you have any confidence it won't
happen again?
No, I do not have confidence.
It won't happen again because it isthe mindset of the Trump administration
and that is that this governmentis to be run for a handful of
billionaires and people with powerand everyone else can just eat dirt.

(01:27:59):
That is the view of theTrump administration.
We're feeling it right now in theSocial Security Administration,
but we're feeling it everywhere.
That Elon Musk goes with his magicchainsaw to fire people, to do it in ugly
ways, to undermine the kind of obligationsthat we have passed here in Congress, uh,

(01:28:20):
to get rid of the consumer agency, to tryto shut down the Department of Education,
uh, and why it is all in service.
To government that works betterfor the rich and the powerful.
This is all leading toward theRepublicans, Elon Musk and Donald
Trump, and the Republicans here inCongress who wanna push through a big

(01:28:43):
tax giveaway that's gonna cause $4.7billion, go mostly to billionaires
and billionaire corporations, andthey wanna pay for it on the backs.
Of seniors on the backs of littlekids, on the backs of people with
disabilities, on the backs of veterans,on the backs of just hardworking

(01:29:06):
people all across this country.
That is the ultimate battle, andthis story at Social Security
right now is just the most visiblepicture of what's going on.
Martin O'Malley, uh, said a few weeks agonow, uh, or maybe a month or so that, that
he was concerned that we might see thesystem actually collapse over, I think

(01:29:28):
he said the next, uh, 90 days or so.
Now, at the time he said that.
Uh, Eric Kingston.
I, I, I sort of soundedlike hyperbole at the time.
Mm-hmm.
But with more and more of these,you know, reported problems, should
we in fact be worried that O'Malleywas right about those warnings?
That it could collapse?
That checks might stop going out and,uh, you know, is that a real concern?

(01:29:52):
I believe that is a concern.
And what it is, what it involves is.
That is Doge has been, and PresidentTrump have been stripping social security
of its expertise and historical memory.
Mm-hmm.
Uh, they've taken the, IT.

(01:30:12):
They've taken the folks who doit, who, which is the core of
the structure of the system.
Mm-hmm.
They've moved most of them out,and they put in Doge people who
have no understanding of socialsecurity for the most part.
Beyond that.
They've eliminated.
All the offices that produce reports abouthow people are being affected by changes

(01:30:33):
in social security, they just sent a memoout to every Social Security employee.
Do not answer any inquiriesfrom congressional offices,
right or from reporters.
That's nuts.
It's supposed to be a free country.
Mm-hmm.
They're trying to turn it some way,but, uh, it's, they're trying to
control the information and youknow, to some extent they're doing a

(01:30:53):
good job by cutting off everything.
Yeah.
They've put people in charge of.
Uh, changing, uh, the computer structure.
Mm-hmm.
And it's act, it has to be a disaster.
Uh, Elon Musk has the hubris to saythey can do it in three to five months.
I think most of the time, most peoplewho've looked at it seriously have said

(01:31:17):
it does need to be changed, but it hasto be done over a five year period.
Uh, yeah.
And, and, and not by folks who don't knowhow to program COBOL as seems to be the
case with these Doge Bros. Uh, and that
yeah, that's an interesting storytoo, because SSA worked hard to
get a top level COBOL person 'causethat's more or less people who

(01:31:38):
started with COBOL a long time ago.
But it's a very functional system still.
They work to get someone and oneof the first people who was RIF.
It was that expert inCOBOL that they brought in.
They, it's everything youlisten to is horrible.
They're moving people like that.

(01:31:58):
If they can't fire them, they're movingthem into claims offices, meaning.
I say this claims is really, you know, aclaim, a social security claims person.
Mm-hmm.
Is very important.
Right.
It also takes two tothree years to train them.
You just don't throw someone intothe job and you just don't get rid

(01:32:19):
of all these folks 'cause you'rein the middle of training them and
you have to bring more people on.
Uh, yeah.
I mean, what they seem to be doing, evenwhile you know, Donald Trump has claimed.
For years, oh, he's notgonna touch Social Security.
And yet they seem to be firing,uh, thousands of employees.

(01:32:40):
Uh, laying them off, moving themaround as, as you suggest, you
know, suggesting well, we're, we're,maybe we're cutting administrative.
You know, work and services andso forth, but not actual benefits.
Is there any reason tofeel any better about that?
Is there an actual line between, youknow, benefits that people receive and

(01:33:02):
the costs of, of running the program?
I. I don't believe I'm, I'm sorry to say,and I feel really bad about this because
I is just, what we're facing is so bad.
I don't believe anything they say, forthe most part, when it comes to social
security saying they're not gonnaaffect people, it's not gonna hurt them.

(01:33:22):
Well, the.
The slowdown in processing is gonna doublethe time people have to spend to get
disability benefits if they're appealing.
The system, right now it's about 230 days.
It's probably gonna aboutdouble 400 plus days.
Wow.
Now, think about that.
You become a disabled per worker.

(01:33:43):
Mm-hmm.
You can't work, but you'vegotta go through this process
for a year and a half.
And yet here's Mike Johnson housespeaker Mike Johnson on, uh, mm-hmm.
A Thursday after Republicans in theUS House just voted to move forward
with Trump's legislative agenda.
These enormous cuts across the entiregovernment to largely make way for

(01:34:04):
enormous tax cuts for corporations.
Mm-hmm.
And the wealthy here was,uh, here was Mike Johnson.
Today the president has made clearSocial Security, Medicare, Medicaid.
We'll, we'll not, uh, take a hit.
Will not take a hit.
Professor, can you decode that for us?
Yeah, I can.
It's a boldface lie.
They've already taken a hit.

(01:34:24):
We pay for our socialsecurity bene for our, the
administration of social security.
We pay for that.
But in spite of that, they've cutthe administrative funding for social
security over a fair number of years.
And now we're, you know, really movinginto a very difficult area that affects

(01:34:45):
the experience people have getting socialsecurity that's already affecting it.
Last time around the president said, oh,we're not gonna touch Social Security.
Uh, and then he started saying, well.
People who get disability insurancearen't really social security
beneficiaries or something.
Mm. I'm afraid they're gonna goafter the disability program.
Mm. Mercilessly lots of reviews,lots of bar barricades to

(01:35:11):
continuing or getting benefits.
They don't have, I don't think theyhave respect for citizens or people
who have need, and they don't haverespect for young people either.
And what I'm gonna say there is.
Not only are they cutting thesocial security of people like
me who are in our seventies.
Mm-hmm.
Or not in cutting, butcausing these problems.

(01:35:31):
Right.
But we have a huge crisiswe ought to be looking at.
We have a lot of crises, I'm afraid.
Yes.
This is a kind we should be looking at,which is about half of today's workers.
Uh, under 67 will not be able to maintaintheir standard of living in retirement
if you count the cost of healthcare.
Mm-hmm.
It's prob in long-term care,it's probably about two thirds.

(01:35:54):
That's a crisis that needs to be adjusted.
And you, and what they're doingis stripping away the one thing
you can count on Social security.
Yeah.
Fortunately is not the only thingthey seem to be stripping away.
Here's, here's Elon Musk.
This is, uh, last month, uh,talking about quote entitlements.
So I, I guess he's talking not justabout social security here, but maybe

(01:36:17):
Medicare and Medicaid as well as the,as, as, as the best things that need to
be, uh, slashed from the federal budget.
Because most of the federalspending is entitlements.
Um, so.
That, that's, that's like the big oneto eliminate is that's the sort of half
trillion, maybe six, 700 billion a year.
To eliminate most ofthe federal government.

(01:36:38):
Uh, the spending is, uh, entitlements.
That's the big one to eliminate.
And that's the guy, Elon Musk, uh,who is running all of this for the
president of the United States.
Yeah.
And is lying constantly about people150 years old getting benefits.
I just about.
Dishonesty in the system.

(01:37:00):
Uh, it's, you know, it's basicallyan attack on the, on the institution
and it's gonna be, it's a verydangerous one because for them mm-hmm
ultimately, I hope because broad,there's huge support across the country.
It's independent of politicalparty, uh, demographic, religion.

(01:37:21):
Americans like love their social security.
Yep.
The data that we have tells usthey don't want anything cut.
They do wanna see the cap scrapped.
They also, if necessary, and if it wouldhelp increase some benefits, they would
be willing to pay a little more money.
Uh.
Gradually increase thepayroll contribution.

(01:37:43):
They'd like to see the costof living adjustment fixed.
'cause it's a little less than it would'vecost people with disabilities in the old.
They'd like to see people who'veworked long and hard to get a benefit.
That's at least the level ofpoverty from social security.
And there are other things, caregiving.
They also wanna see family leave.
These things can be done without causingi, a large financial problem at all.

(01:38:08):
During the State of the Unionaddress, he talked about, you
know, how many people are over ahundred years old getting benefits?
How many people over 200 yearsold are getting benefits?
How many people over 300 yearsold are getting, these are all
lies or wild exaggerations.
But the point was to say, just likethey do with voting, by the way,

(01:38:32):
oh, there's voter fraud out there,so let's make it harder to vote.
Oh, there's social security out, uh,fraud out there, so let's make it harder
for people to get on Social Security.
It's really, I mean, this isa, this is an old strategy that
Republicans have used forever.
This is just the first time they'vehad the, the guts to actually do it
right out in front of the public.

(01:38:54):
We've seen these death by a thousandpaper cuts sort of thing, or you know,
ever since the Reagan administration,the staffing at the Social Security
Administration on a staff per payeebasis or staff per budget basis or
even an absolute numbers is lowernow than it has been in 50 years.

(01:39:18):
Because you know, every time there'sa Republican in the White House and
they submit a budget and it getspassed, it's got cuts to the Social
Security Administration staffing in it.
And so far social security's beenable to sort of keep up, although
it does take like, I think it's183 days on average to process a
Social security disability claim.
And they're saying now that's gonnabe between two and four years.

(01:39:41):
And keep in mind, Leland Dak, the guywho is in charge of social security,
was like this low level dweeb inthe Social Security Administration.
Who, who, uh, stove piped some informationup to Elon Musk and his people about where
in the Social Security Administration, hethought that you could find some fraud or

(01:40:02):
some waste, and it was probably those twoand 300 year old people who don't exist.
Right.
These, this was, this was,these are programming errors,
got nothing to do with fraud orabuse or waste or anything like that.
But this guy passed this informationalong to, to Elon that he could
use to attack social Security.

(01:40:23):
And so they made him thedirector of the entire agency.
He was just a low level dweeb,and now he's running the place.
And what is he doing?
Well, he just, he just laid off awhole bunch of employees and, uh,
you know, he, he laid off 12% of the57,000 workers at Social Security.

(01:40:43):
And what is the result?
Well, this is, this is from,uh, yesterday's Washington Post.
Or perhaps it's today's, it waspublished last night and I quote, the
Social Security administration websitecrashed four times in 10 days this
month blocking millions of retirees.
I would add, by the way, we're only 25days into the month, um, blocking millions

(01:41:04):
of retirees and disabled Americans andlogging into their online accounts because
the servers were overloaded in the field.
Office managers have resorted toanswering phones at the front desk
as receptionists because so manyemployees have been pushed out.
But the agency no longer has a systemto monitor customers experience with
these services because that officewas eliminated as part of the cost

(01:41:25):
cutting efforts led by Elon Musk.
The agency is engulfed in crisis accordingto internal documents in more than two
dozen current and former agency employeesand officials, they go on to say, for now,
the agency's run by a caretaker leader inhis sixth week on the job who has raced
to push more than 12% of the staff out.

(01:41:46):
Of the staff of 57,000 people, he hasconceded that the agency's phone service
quote sucks and acknowledged that Musk'sUS Doge service is really in charge
of the Social Security Administration.
Senator Angus King, the independent,uh, senator from Maine said in an
interview quote, what's going on isthe destruction of the agency from

(01:42:08):
the inside out and it's accelerating.
He said, I have people approaching meall the time in their seventies and
eighties, and they're beside themselves.
They don't know what's coming.
And then it goes on this again.
This is the Washington Post.
Today, Leland Eck, the accidentalleader, elevated to acting commissioner
after he fed data to Musk's teambehind his boss's backs, has issued

(01:42:30):
rapid fire policy changes that havecreated chaos for frontline staff.
AK has pushed out dozens ofofficials with years of expertise.
Others have left and disgusted.
The moves have upended an agencythat has been underfunded for years.
Calls have flooded intocongressional offices.
The A A RP, the American Association,retired persons announced on Monday that

(01:42:52):
more than 2000 retirees a week have calledthe organization since early February.
Double the usual numbers withconcerns about whether the
benefits they paid for during theirworking careers will continue.
Social Security, it turns out, is theprimary source of income for about
40% of older Americans, and this is,this is the exact same strategy that

(01:43:16):
they've been pursuing over at Medicare.
In 2003, George W. Bush pushed throughlegislation, the Medicare Reform Act
or whatever it was called that thatcreated, you know, the Medicare Part
C had been on the books for a while.
It was put on the books, I believe,during the Clinton administration
as a neoliberal experiment.

(01:43:36):
Let's, let's experiment with a privatecorporation offering some Medicare.
Benefits, but it was George W. Bushin 2003 who really turned it into
what we call Medicare Advantage today.
Gave it that name, allowedprivate insurance companies
to use the word Medicare.
And what did they do?
Oh wow.
We're not going to expand Medicareto include vision, even though

(01:43:59):
your eyes are part of your body.
We're not going to expand Medicare toinclude your dental, even though your
teeth are part of your body and havea huge effect on your overall health.
And we're not going to expand Medicareto include, uh, hearing, even though
hearing is part of your health.
But we will allow Medicare Advantageplans to offer those three benefits.

(01:44:20):
In other words, we're gonna break Medicareso that the Medicare Advantage private
corporate for-profit option looks better.
Well, that's what they're doingto Social Security right now.
They're breaking social security.
And I, you know, I. I, first of all, Itold you like three weeks ago, actually,
I told you several years ago, but, but inparticular, three weeks ago, two, three

(01:44:43):
weeks ago that this was coming, they aregoing to quickly break Social Security.
That's stage one, stage two.
That shoe has not dropped yet, butit will as predictably as the sun
coming up tomorrow, and that is thatin, in the House of Representatives

(01:45:03):
you are going to see introduced aslegislation probably sometime next week,
legislation to, to offer privateinvestment retirement plans to individuals
as an alternative to social security,where the Republicans are gonna say,

(01:45:23):
Hey, you know, young people, if youwanna opt outta Social Security,
you don't have to pay in any longer.
You can pay into this program.
It's run by Citibank or Wells Fargoor whoever gave us the largest
campaign contribution this week.
Or whoever took us on thebest junket to, to Thailand.

(01:45:45):
This, this is an organized plan.
They, they did it with,they did it with Medicare.
More than half of Medicare recipientsare now on these scam programs, the
Medicare advantage scam that arerun by private for-profit insurance
companies, where suddenly people whothought they were on Medicare in many
cases, you know, they, they, the doctorsays, oh, you've gotta have an MRI.

(01:46:07):
And they discover that no, theinsurance company says, Nope,
we're not gonna pay for you.
You can't have an MRI.
80% of the, of the time that thefor-profit insurance companies turn
people down on Medicare Advantage.
If they protest, if they appeal theappeal overturns the original, no.

(01:46:27):
In other words, this is just, you know,these, the Medicare Advantage is a scam
for a bunch of insurance companies tomake a huge, we're talking hundreds of
billions of dollars a year in profits,which they then share to the, you know,
with their shareholders and their,and their senior executives and the
Republican politicians who made them rich.
And they want to, they desperately wannado the same thing with social security.

(01:46:49):
There's a lot more money in socialsecurity than there is in Medicare.
And here it is from Emily Peckover at Axios this morning.
The Social Security Administrationis rushing cuts to phone services at
the White House, requests some of themost vulnerable Americans, including
people who are hospitalized, kidsin foster homes, and those living in

(01:47:12):
remote areas will face more hurdlesapplying for disability benefits.
Acting.
Commissioner Leland Eck said the changeswill be made in two weeks, although he
said it would usually take two yearsto implement these kinds of changes.
You get what's going on here?
I mean this, this is, this isthe deconstruction of the New

(01:47:34):
Deal and the great society.
They're going after those programsthat Democrats put into place,
the 1930s and the 1960s, they'vealready taken down a bunch of 'em.
They want to take down all of them.
They literally wannatake us back to the 1920s
and nobody's calling it out,which just blows my mind.

(01:48:05):
Now entering section B general cuts.
This wasn’t just in Washington,D.C., where thousands turned out.
Thousands rallied in San Francisco andover two dozen cities around the country.
Scientists, well, they describedthemselves, many of them, as “mad
scientists.” That’s scientistswho are really mad. [Emma] , talk

(01:48:26):
about the organizing campaignand what’s at stake right now.
Yeah.
So, I’m coming at it from a graduatestudent perspective, where I’m currently
looking at what my thesis is going tolook like over the next three years,
and realizing that a lot of the waysthat I’ve originally kind of thought
about my science are being impactedby these current executive orders and
budget cuts and kind of the censorshipof science that’s happening right now.

(01:48:49):
And so, that, I think, is where a lotof people are coming at, is looking at
what they’re doing and the impact it hason communities, and then looking at also
how that’s being taken away right now.
Emma, you’re a cancer researcher?
I am.
So, talk about the level of thecuts, whether we’re talking about
NOAA, the climate scientists, peoplelike Dr. Michael Mann, whether we’re

(01:49:12):
talking about basic cancer research.
And also, how is this affectingyour colleagues, older and
also students, whether they cantrust staying in basic science?
Yeah, definitely.
I think we’re seeing right now kind ofa — orders saying, like, which words you
can and can’t use in your grant proposals.
And so, I am coming from abreast cancer perspective.

(01:49:35):
I study breast cancer.
I study women’s health.
And right now you’re not able toreally put into proposals that you are
studying women or females or lookingat barriers or looking even at how
race can influence cancer outcomes.
You mean you can’t saywords like “barrier”
— Yes.
— “race,” “women” in the grant proposals?
No.
That’s the current advice, is grantsare getting flagged for having language

(01:49:55):
that is containing those words.
You know, it’s really interesting.
One of the beneficiaries of theNational Institutes of Health
may have an interesting father.
Mother Jones is reporting that theVought family, as in Russell Vought, the
head of the OMB, but more significantlythe — considered the architect of Project

(01:50:18):
2025, his daughter had cystic fibrosis.
They credit a cystic fibrosisdrug, Trifakta [sic] , for helping
their daughter’s treatment.
That research for [Trikafta] was fundedby the National Institutes of Health.
Talk about the significance of basicresearch when it comes to — I even

(01:50:41):
think about the child who PresidentTrump honored in his congressional
address, a young man, child, whohas cancer, pediatric cancer.
Yeah.
So, the National Institutes of Healthfund a lot of basic research that’s
really critical in providing kind of thescaffold for these treatments later on.

(01:51:04):
And so, when we’re looking at cuts tothe NIH, we’re looking both at cuts
to the workforce and the opportunitiesavailable to scientists, but we’re also
looking at kind of the impact long termof losing these basic science projects
that really have the opportunity todrive cures for people like individuals
with cystic fibrosis and cancer.
And a lot of these, they’renot — it’s incremental steps

(01:51:25):
over time, is how science works.
And so, the basic research, it mightnot seem immediately impactful all the
time, but as you compound these findingsover years and you have scientists
continually working to find cures,things do happen, and we get to these
treatments that are very transformativefor the people with these diseases.
Health and Human Services SecretaryRobert F. Kennedy Jr. recently announced

(01:51:49):
that HHS would no longer allow publiccomments in the rulemaking process,
ending a policy of a half a century toinvolve public opinion in HHS decisions.
Your response?
I think it’s very important to havethe input of scientists and people who
have personal interest in these topics.

(01:52:11):
I think their comments are reallyuseful in making sure that our
policies are informed by scienceand rooted in evidence and have the
ability to really drive progress.
I think when we have kind of aunilateral decision-making power,
we’re maybe losing out on perspectivesthat are really critical and just
making sure that science is able tohelp the people that need it most.
Emma, I also wanted to ask you aboutscientists around the world and

(01:52:36):
warnings your institutions, whetherwe’re talking about universities or
independent labs — in our next segment,we’re going to talk about a young
former graduate student who has agreen card, has just been taken by ICE.
We’re not sure where he is.
But the warning that was put out topeople on visas around the world who

(01:52:57):
work at — in your world, at scientificestablishment in this country?
Yes.
So, we had a lot of discussions leadingup to the event on March 7th about how
we could best include internationalscientists and not put a target on
their back, because we know that there’scurrently this order where visas can
be canceled, and you can kind of facerepercussions that you would not face

(01:53:18):
as a citizen if you’re on a visa.
And so, we wanted to make sure thatthere’s a way to productively engage.
But I think it became even moresevere when we did have that post
put out, where President Trump didallege that you, if you partook in
an illegal protest, you could facesignificant repercussions to your visa.
And so, I think that is harmfulright now, because science is

(01:53:40):
such an international endeavor.
America is such a land ofopportunity for young scientists.
It brings so many scientists overfrom other countries for training,
that then go on and make significantimpacts, both in the U.S. and in
their home communities and worldwide.
And so, we really want to makesure, as well, within Stand Up for
Science, that we are speaking to theperspectives of international students

(01:54:01):
and those who might not currentlyhave a voice because of these orders.
Where do you go next?
Where is this rally that attractedthousands across the country?
That’s what we’re currentlytrying to figure out.
And so, we are a group ofearly-career scientists.
None of us have done significantpolitical organizing in the past.
And so, we’re kind of taking a step backand looking at what matters to people

(01:54:24):
right now, what are the best places.
We want to make sure that we’re takinginto account all perspectives, because
we are right now — this was somethingthat was put together very quickly.
It had impact.
It has momentum.
And now how do we use thatto really drive change
Planned Parenthood is a health system thatliterally sits in the middle of the public
health system and tries to strengthen it.

(01:54:46):
Many patients that come to PlannedParenthood, we are the first point of
entry into the healthcare system broadly.
And the fact that Governor McMaster wouldwant to deny patients access to care,
when, you know, many times we are theonly safety net — the safety net of the
safety net — there providing care, justseems completely bonkers to us, as well.

(01:55:07):
And talk about what that care is.
It goes way beyond abortion.
Oh, of course it goes way beyond abortion.
It is STI testing.
It is access to contraception, wellnessexams, breast cancer screenings,
gender-affirming care — everythingthat someone would need to live a
full and free, sexually healthy life.

(01:55:29):
And I think that, you know, again,in many cases, it is — there’s
primary care being provided inPlanned Parenthood health centers.
It is just basic healthcare.
And to have a state try to denythat is what this case is about,
using levers like Medicaid.
Already South Carolina bans abortionsafter six weeks of pregnancy?

(01:55:51):
Correct.
Can you talk about Texas?
In 2021, Texas terminatedPlanned Parenthood from
its state Medicaid program.
Talk about this precedent and also what itmeans if the conservative-majority Supreme
Court rules in favor of South Carolina.

(01:56:13):
Yes, so, you know, look, we have statesthat have taken various measures to
attack Planned Parenthood and removeus from their state Medicaid system.
And the impact of that, again,is on the patients, right?
This isn’t about Planned Parenthood.
This is about whether or not thepatients have the right to use their

(01:56:33):
health insurance in order to getaccess to the care of their choice, of
their choosing, from their provider.
You know, what will happen if theSupreme Court decides to rule in favor
of South Carolina is that more stateswill act like South Carolina and Texas.
Many of those states that haveenacted the most restrictive abortion
bans will very likely try to removePlanned Parenthood from its ability

(01:56:57):
to — or, patients’ ability to useMedicaid to go to Planned Parenthood.
So it could have very devastatingconsequence on the patients
throughout those states and theirability to get high-quality care
that we believe they deserve.
And can you explain what thepowerhouse Christian legal group
Alliance Defending Freedom is?

(01:57:18):
This is the group that broughtthe case against Planned
Parenthood in South Carolina.
Yes.
So, this is, you know, a group that— should be no surprise — was incorporated
in Amarillo, Texas, so that anytimethey can bring a lawsuit, they can go
directly to Judge Kacsmaryk, who isthe only federal judge in the Northern

(01:57:40):
District of Texas, a very friendlyanti-abortion judge that, you know,
has clearly opened his court to thesekinds of cases and supporting them.
We are before that court right nowon a false claims case, a meritless
case where not only has Texas kickedPlanned Parenthood affiliates out of

(01:58:04):
the Medicaid program there, they arealso suing to recoup resources back
to the state for all of the otherservices that have been provided, in
a bogus lawsuit that is intended totry to bankrupt Planned Parenthood.
And I think that, you know, we arewatching just a patchwork of very

(01:58:28):
Christian nationalist and anti-abortionorganizations work with this, you know,
new structural advantage that theyhave, both with the administration
as it currently stands, the SupremeCourt, and the kind of patchwork
of a judicial system that hasbeen coopted by right-wing judges.

(01:58:50):
The Trump administration is withholdingtens of millions of dollars from nine
Planned Parenthood state affiliatesthat provide contraceptives and other
vital reproductive care, predominantlyto low-income and people of color.
The providers received notices thisweek stating their Title X funding
was being temporarily retained due to“possible violations,” they said, of

(01:59:16):
Trump’s policies against DEI — diversity,equity and inclusion. Health and Human
Services has given the providers,which operate dozens of clinics
nationwide, including in Indiana andKentucky, 10 days to comply with Trump’s
demands to eliminate DEI initiatives.
In a letter, HHS pointed to missionstatements and other public documents

(01:59:37):
that highlight the clinics’ commitmentto Black communities as supposed
evidence of their noncompliance.
Alexis McGill Johnson, you’rethe CEO of Planned Parenthood.
Your response?
I’m a CEO of Planned Parenthood.
I am a Black woman.
I am, you know, someone who cares deeplyabout reducing disparities in healthcare

(02:00:01):
in communities, as we all should.
I can’t think of any American who wouldbelieve that the color of your skin
should dictate what kind of care you get.
And that is what PlannedParenthood stands for.
No matter who you are, no matter whereyou live, no matter what your ZIP code
is, no matter how you identify, nomatter your documentation status, we are

(02:00:25):
there to serve you and ensure that youget high-quality, time-sensitive care.
And so, I think about the work thatPlanned Parenthood providers do every day,
the way they have been able to leveragea critically important, long-standing
program like Title X to fund access tocontraception and support communities.

(02:00:46):
And the idea that the Trump administrationwould take those resources away, to
suspend those resources because PlannedParenthood is committed to improving
health outcomes in community, thatis essentially what they are saying.
What they are not saying is that thisis, you know, just another one of
the dozens of attacks that PlannedParenthood is facing, as people who

(02:01:12):
want to use any means that they haveto deny access and resources to Planned
Parenthood because they are trying toadvance their anti-abortion agenda.
So, are you sticking with DEI atthese clinics, or the clinics?
You know, each affiliate is going tomake their decisions about how they
enact improvements to health outcomes.

(02:01:35):
But at our core — right?
— at our core, reducing disparities, healthdisparities, in community is what we do.
And I think that’s reallyimportant for us to move away from,
you know, just these trigger wordslike ”DEI” and actually talk about
what those words mean and what theymean in practice for community — right?

(02:01:56):
— ensuring we have representation ofeveryone, so that we have people who speak
the same languages as our patients, sothat we can give them the best care, that
we have an ability to improve outcomesand ensure that people are getting the
right resources to do so, and that, youknow, everyone is actually seen — not

(02:02:16):
just seen by a doctor, but literallyseen for who they are and what they want.
That is what I have in myhealthcare system I go to.
I know when I walk into myprovider, they know who I am.
They are able to see me andunderstand my particular needs.
And I think everyone inAmerica deserves that.
And I can’t imagine that thisadministration would be very

(02:02:38):
popular in trying to deny otherAmericans that same right.
And finally, we just have a minute, butwith Planned Parenthood under assault,
you have also had a lot of victories.
Among them, in Wisconsin, Judge SusanCrawford, who once represented Planned
Parenthood as an attorney, trounced

(02:02:58):
Brad Schimel, the judge who wasfunded by, among others, the
richest man in the world, Elon Musk.
The significance of this, and othervictories that you consider so
important at this very fraught time?
Oh, Wisconsin was such a shot in thearm, I think, for this movement, for
so many movements, because I thinkwhat it shows is that the good people

(02:03:20):
of Wisconsin, the good people ofAmerica do not want to be bought.
They want to do what is right.
They want the ability to make decisions,to continue to vote for freedom and
to ensure that their representationreflects that in their state.
And I think, you know, all of uslooking to Wisconsin have a lot of hope

(02:03:41):
about what is possible right now as wefight back with this administration.
You know, I also think — I mean, and thepractical implications of that, right?
We have a state that has voted insupport of reproductive freedom, and
to have a state Supreme Court to affirmthat is going to be really important.
It’s also going to be really importantas we approach, you know, in five

(02:04:02):
years, the year 2030 and we hit aredistricting year, and so that we’re
able to kind of start to fight backstructurally in the space that we are in.
I’d also point you to Missouri, Amy.
The people of Missouri voted toenshrine — to actually flip a
ban, abortion ban, in November.
And it’s only been within the last monththat the Missouri clinics have been able

(02:04:27):
to provide access to abortion, becauseeven when you win, you still have to
defend it with the state AG and thestatehouse, that may not be favorable.
So, that is the work that we haveto be reminded of, that even when
we win, we have to defend those winsfiercely and remind — remind these
electeds what we want and who we areand how powerful we will be to ensure

(02:04:51):
that we get to maintain our freedoms.
CDC historically has also been a,a training ground to train future
epidemiologists, future scientists,future leaders in public health.
The IS would program would be anexample of that, but many of the
public health staff and leaders instate and local health departments
around the country have on theirresume having worked at CD, C and EIS.

(02:05:15):
Let's talk about what'sbeen happening recently.
Can you give us an overview?
Sure.
It's difficult to, to give an overviewview because it's complicated.
But with the new administrationfirst, about a month ago, uh, it
was a broad restructuring firingof staff at CDC, mostly younger
staff, for example, in trainingprograms like I was talking about.

(02:05:39):
But acutely on April 1st.
In addition, HHS took a very serious stepof announcing about 2,400 positions lost
at CDC across the breadth of the agency.
Most people think of CDC as an agencythat works in infectious diseases, and
it does, but CDC is actually the nation'spublic health department and so has.

(02:06:03):
Longstanding programs and chronicdiseases and environmental health issues
and birth defects, disabilities, andit's really in that part of CDC, that
non-infectious part that apparentlymost of these reductions were made,
although built as efficiency gains.
It's very difficult to, to understandthat because essentially entire

(02:06:25):
programs, including the scientists,the laboratorians were eliminated.
It's frustrating and I'm.
Um, difficult to talk about thespecifics because this has also
been done unfortunately, with a bitof secrecy, and so there's been no
official list public by HHS of the exactpositions that have been eliminated.

(02:06:47):
And instead that's had to be compiledmainly by those individuals who
were affected, who have spoke it up.
And so some of what you and Iare gonna have to deal with today
is not knowing with precision.
All of the information we'd like to know.
What do we know about people and programsthat have been cut at at this point?
Like what is clear?

(02:07:08):
So it, it does seem like CDC isdivided into what are called centers.
That's the subdivisions of CDC.
It does seem like about 75% ofthe centers have been profoundly
affected by this with a somewhat.
On its face, randomdissolution of programs.

(02:07:29):
For example, in the Environmental healthcenter, the lead poisoning programs
that respond to lead crises aroundthe country seem to have eliminated.
The asthma program has been eliminated.
The.
Workers that investigate cruiseship outbreaks have been eliminated.
Another part of CDC is called niosh.
It's the National Institute Institutefor Occupational Safety and Health,

(02:07:49):
dealing with worker safety issues.
Almost all of that appears to have beeneliminated except for one congressionally
mandated piece that deals with the WorldTrade Center, a huge loss, tobacco, uh.
Leading cause of chronicdisease death in this country.
The tobacco part of CDC, theOffice for Smoking and Health
seems to have been eliminated.

(02:08:10):
The sexually transmitted disease Laborlaboratory at CDC that is unique in
its ability to identify new sexuallytransmitted disease pathogens.
Those laboratories have beenfired a fair amount of HIV.
Appears to have been eliminatedthe HIV prevention programs, both
domestically and globally, as wellas, uh, apparently much of the work

(02:08:32):
that goes on with HIV surveillance,tracking the HIV epidemic around the
country, oral health programs, a fairamount of birth defects and disability.
Let me go on though to say that beyondjust these reductions in personnel,
I think one of the things that'smost frightening to me is that.

(02:08:53):
Much of the leadership of CDC that waspresent two weeks ago is no longer there.
When you start going through the differentcenters, even though centers have not
been eliminated, the center directorshave been told they need to resign or be.
Reallocated to the Indian HealthService in Alaska or somewhere.

(02:09:13):
So that applies to the center directorsfor the HIV, tb, STD, and Viral Center
for the Chronic Disease Prevention Centerfor our CDC D'S Global Health Center.
Those are all gone.
The NIOSH Center director has beenasked to lead the, the director for
the Center for Forecasting, analyAnalytics has been asked to leave.

(02:09:34):
The Birth Defects Center director hasbeen asked to leave, and that's on top of.
Resignations that occurred in the weekbefore this happened, including the
center director that governs all theinfrastructure monies that go out to
state and local health departments.
The principal deputy at CDC resigned.
The injury and Environmental centerdirectors are still there, but

(02:09:57):
their centers have been devastatedby this, and so their ability
to lead is much more diminished.
In addition to the centerdirectors, the immediate office
of the director that essentiallyprovides the leadership for CD.
C has also had.
Most of its leaders leave, including theleader for the Office of Communications.
Communication activities hadnow been centralized at HHS.

(02:10:19):
The Chief operating Officer has leftthe head of the Office of Equity, has
left the Office of Program Planningand Evaluation Director resigned.
The Office of Science Director resigned.
The Washington DC office ofCDC Director was asked to leave
Freedom of Information Act.
Alito was asked to leave.
I could go on, but I, I. Making thepoint that this is really almost a

(02:10:42):
decapitation of leadership at CDCthat has accompanied these reductions.
That's a really important point becauseI know we see these big numbers of,
of layoffs, which in and of themselvesare shocking, but to know that so
many of them layoffs, resignations,people being asked to leave are in
leadership positions is really cripplingfor an organization of this size.

(02:11:04):
I mean, having worked with them for solong, what can you tell us about the,
the expertise that's now been lost?
Well, it's, it's irreplaceable.
The expertise that, that's lost and I'mnot sure I understand the reasoning behind
this, but absolutely no warning was givento leadership that this was about to
happen, and leaders were asked to leavewithin 24 hours of being no notified, and

(02:11:29):
so there was no opportunity for planning.
I. For continuity of operations forthe agency to say, with these drastic
leadership departures, what is it thatwe need to be doing to make sure that we
can continue to do, to do our jobs, thatthat opportunity is gone as well as the
expertise that could have informed howCDC could best manage these reductions.

(02:11:52):
So it's a crisis.
It's a crisis in the agency right now.
Let's talk a little more broadly.
You know, you mentioned before thatthe CDC C'S core mission is, you
know, infectious disease surveillanceand, and, and some of the, some of
what has been talked about is thatthe CDC is returning to its mission.
That was in some of thecommunication that went out.
Where does that fall in all of this?
Yeah, I, I, I, um,respectfully would, would.

(02:12:15):
Disagree with your notion that C'S coremission is infectious disease control.
That's how CDC wasfounded back in the 1940s.
But the CDC today, the CDC stands forcenters, plural for disease prevention
and control, and much if not most ofwhat CDC does that's most important to

(02:12:35):
the American public is not in infectiousdisease outbreak identification.
Instead, it's work across therange of those conditions that are
causing the most preventable deathand disability in this country.
Infectious disease is certainly important.
That's how CDC tends to get in the news.
But most of what they do is quietlyworking with state and local

(02:12:58):
health departments and universitiesaround the country attacking
the leading causes of death and.
Chronic diseases, tobacco, obesityin environmental issues like
lead poisoning and asthma andbirth defects and disability and
injury and violence prevention.
That's really the value add that CDC has.
I'm not trying to say the infectiousdisease part isn't important.

(02:13:21):
It is, but equally, if not more importantis the rest of what CDC does, and that's
been most affected by these reductions.
What are you most concerned about?
Well, this is really the worst damagethat has been done to public health in
this country since I've been working,and I worry most about two things.

(02:13:45):
Number one, I. Unlessreinstated, it's irretrievable.
And so we are facing a crisis not onlytoday, but indefinitely into the future.
And many of the effects are gonnatake time for their effects are known.
It's gonna take a while for smokingrates to start going up or for blood

(02:14:06):
poisoning to start affecting kids again.
But that is coming andI'm concerned about that.
Second, and equally importantin my mind, you know.
Public health in this country is a jointfederal, state, local responsibility.
But I don't think that most peoplerealize that over three quarters
of CDC D'S budget goes out to stateand local health departments all

(02:14:27):
around the country to universities,to community-based organizations.
And so this is not just a.Problem for a federal agency.
Instead, it's a problem for our publichealth system and for the ability
of health departments to serve everycommunity in our country to operate
effectively and and to do what itis that people expect them to do.

(02:14:50):
With all that's happening rightnow, with all the changes that are
happening, it's difficult to getattention to any particular issue.
I would just, you know.
Request that those people who are conconcerned about public health, who are
listening audience, for example, um,to speak up on this, to, to, to let
our leaders know what they think, inparticular, to express concern about

(02:15:11):
really the future of the public healthsystem in this country that's been and
is going to be profoundly affected bywhat we're seeing happening right now.
I just wanna play a little bit for allof you of one of the many things that
President Trump has said about the massivereduction in the federal workforce.
It's part of a push, he says, towardsimproved government efficiency.

(02:15:32):
We have to make our governmentsmaller, more efficient, more
effective, and a lot less expensive.
This is the constant line that thepresident, that Elon Musk, that everyone
associated with this really largereduction in force is giving, that
the federal government is bloated, thesize of the workforce is too large.
It can get the same work done fasterand more efficiently with fewer people.

(02:15:55):
Emily, do you have a retort to that?
Oh yes.
I would say this, all of these ways ofattacks of firing civilians and federal
employees are not going to make thegovernment cheaper in the long run.
I would say.
Why?
One aspect of the DRP is that positionreally ceases to exist, but what doesn't
change is the size of our mission and thework that we need to accomplish every day.

(02:16:18):
So I wouldn't be surprised if theycould possibly need to hire an outside
contractor, which would be a lotmore expensive than what we could
have done as an in-house civilian.
Okay.
Arielle, same question for you.
CMS is huge, right?
Aside from the Department of Defense,Health and Human Services is the largest
expense, essentially, other than socialsecurity, that the federal government has.

(02:16:42):
Arguably there's room forsqueezing some efficiencies out.
What do you think?
Medicare and Medicaid arealready very efficient programs.
Overhead in the private insurance marketis 15% to 20% of administrative costs
for running a health care program.
In the public sector it's around 2%.

(02:17:02):
So you can already see that we are muchmore efficient than the private sector.
There are ways to makethings more efficient.
But it's not throughblanket, untargeted firings.
First of all, I have now been paidfor six weeks that I haven't done any
work, because of how they fired me.
So that's not efficient.
Secondly, they didn't give ustime to do any sorts of handoffs.

(02:17:25):
So I was working, and I had no opportunityto pass off the work that I was doing
or the emails that were threads thatwere in my inbox to anyone else,
before I lost access to my computer.
So that's not efficient.
When I was working on a program thatwas intended to improve efficiency

(02:17:46):
in Medicaid and improve outcomes,I know that Donald Trump and Elon
Musk don't like to hear this, but tochange public policy and to make it
work better, takes time and evidence.
You don't want to just do across theboard changes that you think might work.
You want to make sure thata policy idea does have the
results it's intended to have.

(02:18:08):
And so that takes time and expertise.
And then once you know whether ornot it's effective, you scale it, or
you end it, if it's not effective.
And in these large unconsideredcuts, we aren't doing things in a
way to make them more efficient.
Passing legislation to reformthe government to maybe get
rid of some onerous, outdatedreporting requirements or whatever.

(02:18:30):
That takes time.
You have to change the law todo that, and they aren't doing
the hard work that requires.
So I just don't think that what they'redoing will make anything work better.
I want to lean on your experience inthe private sector before you came
to work for the federal government.
Because a lot of people look at whatthe three of you described about, the
sudden notice, the immediately gettingcut off from IT systems, et cetera.

(02:18:54):
And they say, I've beenthrough that a bunch of times
working for corporate America.
That's just how it works.
You get walked into a room, if you'relucky and someone says, Nope, you are
surplus to requirements, now you arebeing downsized, and they just walk
you straight out of the building.
So I think folks may come to thisconversation with perhaps not that
much sympathy on that front, justsaying, federal employees have been

(02:19:19):
insulated from the realities ofthe private sector for a long time.
And, welcome to our world.
Yeah, I get that maybethat's the expectation.
I do think that I havetwo responses to that.
I was working in public service, andthe idea is that you're not working
on behalf of a company's bottom line,but instead you're working on behalf

(02:19:41):
of the American people to serve them.
There's like this social contractthat's in place, is that in
exchange for less money and lessflexibility, you have stability.
People make that trade offevery day, because they value
serving the American people.
But when you erode that contract, orthat social understanding that we've long

(02:20:02):
had, between the tradeoffs of working forthe federal government and the tradeoffs
of working in the private sector.
Why would anyone want to gowork for the federal government?
Because we already know that theopportunities are more lucrative.
Yes.
Maybe more risky, but morelucrative in the private sector.
And I just worry that in the waythat they're handling this, no one in

(02:20:23):
their right mind would go work for thefederal government, and that is a loss
to the American people, not to me.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Point well taken.
Because one of the things that haslong been thought about is that you
want the best people to be able to dothe kind of complex enacting, the kind
of complex policy that the federalgovernment is charged with doing.
Now, LG, let me just be blunt here.

(02:20:45):
Because again, I'm trying to reflecton what listeners may be thinking.
Why would the Office of Personneland Management even need an
office of communications?
Like what does that actually have todo with serving the American people?
Yeah, I can understand on one handwhere that might be coming from, but the
Office of Communications does a lot tomake sure that the American people, the

(02:21:07):
press, other agencies, other stakeholdersknow what our agency is doing.
Our agency dealt with workforcepolicy for the federal workforce,
and that can be hard to understand.
OPM is essentially the HR arm of thefederal government, so we worked with
concepts and products like healthcare retirement, and anyone who has

(02:21:28):
worked in health care or retirement,or employment and performance
management, that can be complex.
So we did a lot of work to translate thatreally complex policy and those complex
actions to people, so they understoodwhat their government was doing for them.
In addition, when we would have questionsfrom press, public, anyone who wanted

(02:21:50):
to reach out to our agency to get moreinformation, it was our responsibility
to respond or make sure that we wereworking with the various subject
matter experts to get that informationand be able to translate that for
folks, so they know what's going on.
In addition, we had folks whoworked to make things accessible.
So folks with disabilities who maynot be able to just listen to a

(02:22:11):
radio show, go online to read thelatest memo, or the latest policy.
My team worked to make thoseaccessible so that people with
disabilities would be able to havethe same access to this really
incredible and important information.
The Department of Health and HumanServices on Thursday announced that
it plans to lay off 10,000 employees.

(02:22:31):
As part of a major restructuring planand shut down entire agencies within HHS,
including ones that oversee billions ofdollars in funds for addiction services
and community health centers acrossthe country cuts at those agencies
like the Food and Drug AdministrationsCenters for Centers for Disease

(02:22:52):
Control, national Institutes of Health.
And the centers of Medicare and Medicaidservices will result in a cut of some
20,000 federal jobs at the agency.
The Department of Defense has already cutmore than 17,000 probationary employees,

(02:23:13):
though a federal judge has ordered that.
It was done unlawfully by theTrump administration and its.
Elon Musk Dobros and has orderedthe Pentagon to restore those jobs.
The administration has said thatthe IRS will see layoffs of as many
as 6,700 workers likely to severelyimpact the amount of revenue that

(02:23:36):
the federal government will bring in.
But few other, if any federalagencies are facing as many job cuts.
As the Department of Veterans Affairsat the beginning of March, according
to an internal VA memo, the newleadership under Donald Trump said
that it was planning a reorganizationthat includes cutting over 80,000 jobs.

(02:24:01):
From the agency that provideshealthcare and other services for
millions of American veterans, the memoinstructs top level staff to prepare
for an agency-wide reorganizationthis August to quote, resize and
tailor the workforce to the mission.
Revised structure, whatever that means.

(02:24:22):
It also calls for agency officialsto work with White House's Department
of Government Efficiency or Doge,to move aggressively while taking a
pragmatic and disciplined approach.
To the Trump administration's goals,quote, things need to change, said Trump's
Veterans Affairs Secretary, Doug Collins,in a recent video posted on social media,

(02:24:44):
adding that the layoffs would not meancuts to veterans healthcare or benefits.
Well, that seems like a lot of layoffs.
Is it possible they would not result inloss of care or benefits to veterans?
This administration is finally goingto give the veterans what they want.
Collins said in the video, presidentTrump has a mandate for generational

(02:25:07):
change in Washington, and that's exactlywhat we're going to deliver in the va.
He said, veterans have already beenspeaking out against the cuts at the
va, where more than 25% of the VA'sworkforce is comprised of veterans.
But from layoffs at the Departmentof Veterans Affairs to a Pentagon

(02:25:29):
Purge of archives that documenteddiversity in the military, veterans
have been acutely affected by Trump'sactions, AP Reports this week.
With the Republican president determinedto continue slashing the federal
government, the burden will only growon veterans who make up roughly 30% of

(02:25:50):
the over 2 million civilians who workfor the federal government overall, and
often tap government benefits that theyearned with their military service.
Quote, at a moment of crisisfor all of our veterans.
The VA's system of healthcare and benefitshas been disastrously and disgracefully.
Put on the chopping block by the Trumpadministration said Senator Richard

(02:26:13):
Blumenthal, the top Democrat on theSenate Veterans Affairs Committee.
At a news conference last week,Blumenthal announced a series of so-called
shadow hearings by Senate Democrats.
To spotlight how veterans arebeing impacted by all of this.
Veterans are outraged.
Said Senator Tammy Duckworth, anIllinois Democrat who's an Iraq

(02:26:37):
veteran and former assistant secretaryat the va. Quote, they said Donald
Trump promised to watch out for them.
The first thing he does is fire them.
In fact, nearly six in 10 veteransvoted for Donald Trump last
year according to AP Vote Cast.
Yet congressional Republicans arestanding in support of Trump's

(02:27:00):
goals, even as they encounter fiercepushback, including from many veterans.
In their home districts, quote,they've cut a lot, but understand
this essential jobs are not being cut.
Said Congressman Ma. Mike Bost, theRepublican chair of the House Veterans
Affairs Committee during a tele-townhall last week, noting that he is

(02:27:22):
working directly with the VA's secretary.
Uh, Doug Collins.
We're all kind of wondering what's nextsaid dan Foster, a Washington State
Army vet who lost his job when the VAcanceled a contract, supporting a program
that educates service members on how toaccess their benefits and VA programs.

(02:27:42):
Others are angry that they have beenportrayed as dead weight and cut from
jobs that they felt played a directrole in helping veterans get healthcare.
Democrats are already pressingtheir Republican colleagues to
show their support for veterans innegotiations to allow passage of a
Republican government funding bill.

(02:28:03):
Earlier this month, Democrats secureda vote to amend the package to
include language that would protectveterans from the federal layoffs.
That amendment failed on partylines with Republicans voting
against protecting veterans.
Democratic Senator Ruben Gallego ofArizona, who is also a veteran, said

(02:28:26):
he was unsure whether veterans wouldshift their political allegiance
or not, but he said it is at leastclear veterans are quote pissed.
Last week, the nation's largestprogressive veterans nonprofit
organization, vote Vets launcheda multi-platform six figure ad
campaign targeting house districts.

(02:28:48):
Around the country before next year'smidterm elections, calling out Republican
veteran members of Congress for beingcomplicit and dodging their constituents.
As Elon Musk's Doge fires veteransacross the country, the ads
according to the group will targetRepublican Congress members.
Don Bacon in Nebraska, JenniferKiggins in Virginia, John James

(02:29:10):
in Michigan, Scott Perry inPennsylvania, and Zach Nunn in Iowa.
The campaign includes billboardscalling out the representatives for
supporting Musk and the Doge Bros forslashing thousands of veteran jobs and.
It also includes 62nd video ads torun in those members, districts like

(02:29:31):
this one featuring a group of veteranssitting in a circle and telling their
stories of being downsized by Elon Musk.
I was at Barnes and Nobles with my twochildren, four and 10, and my husband.
And I received a text from my coworkerand he said, have you seen the email?
I I, I served in the military for over33 years, just accepted a new position

(02:29:54):
in the va. Come into the office.
Fire up my computer and I come back andthere's an email sitting there for me.
I knew then.
I knew what was coming.
I have not had a single negativeperformance review in my 10 years.
It feels like veterans are beingpersonally attacked by Elon Musk.
I did not put my life on the linefor some tech bro, billionaire

(02:30:17):
from South Africa to come in hereand try to destroy our country.
We are gonna bear a lot of this.
A lot of this costs withrising cost inflation.
I'm literally donating plasmato buy eggs and our Congress
person does absolutely nothing.
Stop Elon's War on Veterans.
Now.

(02:30:39):
And finally, section C, Medicaidand Health and Human Services.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Of the KennedyEmpire is our newest United States
Secretary of Health and Human Services.
He's a Nepo baby.
He's an anti-vax activist and aself-proclaimed brain worm landlord.
So naturally, I'm sure a person likehim hasn't said anything worrying.
Right.

(02:30:59):
Every black kid is now just standardput on Adderall, SSRIs, benzos,
which are known to induce violence.
Not true, and those kids are going tohave a chance to go somewhere to get
reparented to live in a community wherethere'll be no cell phones, no screens.
You'll actually have to talk to people.
All right?
A lot to unpack here.

(02:31:20):
First of all.
No, both parts of that sentence arelies and not based in fact or science.
Second of all, whenever white peopletalk about re-parenting or sending
children of other races away fromtheir parents to be reeducated.
This should raise some red flags.
I know we all feel inextricably bound tothe hellish influence of technology in

(02:31:42):
our lives, but gathering all of the blackkids, taking them away from their parents,
where God knows what is going to happento them, where they will have no contact
with the outside world, doesn't reallyseem like the best immediate solution.
In addition, this suggestion for blackchildren on these medications which
were prescribed by doctors mind youbeing sent away to be reparented,

(02:32:04):
uh, away from their families.
Sounds eerily familiar to people who knowanything about US History Residential
schools in the United States wereboarding schools designed to forcibly
assimilate indigenous children intoEuro-American culture, beginning in the
early 19th century and continuing throughthe late 19th and early 20th centuries.
These schools operated under themotto, kill the Indian, save the Man.

(02:32:28):
And the idea that by removingindigenous children from their
communities, they would be healedfrom their quote Savage ways.
The US government and religiousorganizations collaborated to
remove native children from theirfamilies, prohibiting them from
speaking their native languages.
Practicing their traditions or maintainingconnections to those communities cut off
not only from their families and theirculture, but also the outside world.

(02:32:50):
By the 20th century, attendance at theseschools was often mandatory and indigenous
families who resisted risked imprisonment.
Many of these schools remained operationalinto the late 20th century with some
persisting into the 1980s and thedevastating effects of which still
impact indigenous communities today.
It's amazing that we stillexist as Native American people.

(02:33:11):
That was not the intent.
You know, the intent was to.
To destroy us as native people.
Generations of Native Americanslost their language, their culture,
and their spiritual practices.
Survivors of these schools oftenstruggled with PTSD, depression and
substance abuse, contributing to cyclesof poverty, addiction, and mental illness.
And the role of the US government andChristian organizations in the abuse

(02:33:35):
of these indigenous children has led todeep distrust in these organizations.
Understandably, and some of you outthere might be saying, well, that's
not what RFK said he was gonna do.
We're gonna be frolicking infields and picking our own fruit.
Yeah.
I don't give a fuckwhat his intentions are.
The road to hell was pavedwith good intentions.
Mama, when you are talking about takingkids away from their parents for quote.

(02:33:59):
Re-parenting, you are taking awaythat child's cultural upbringing.
You're taking them awayfrom their community.
And if the point is to take awaytheir phones as well, how are these
children supposed to defend themselvesfrom any abuse that might take place?
They can't take videos, theycan't document anything.
And their kids, how are they supposedto hold adults accountable if there's

(02:34:20):
no one there to vouch for them?
And like, I mean, I hate to say theobvious, but why is he specifically
targeting like black children?
I wonder.
First of all, black children are notthe only children that are prescribed
these medications by doctors.
Um, again, there's nothing wrong withyour child being prescribed Adderall if
that's what they need, but that's alsolike not the only section of children
being prescribed these medications.

(02:34:41):
Like he's just sayingthe quiet part out loud.
But uh, shocker.
That isn't the only worryingposition that the current health
Secretary has about black people.
Let's bring back that quote from earlier.
Now we know that, you know, we should notbe giving black people the same vaccine
schedule that's given to whites becausetheir immune system is better than ours.
This was brought up duringhis hearing before the Senate

(02:35:02):
confirmed him and he defended it.
He defended this positionsaying it's science.
What different vaccine schedulewould you say I should have received?
I mean, the, the, thePollina article suggests.
That blacks need fewer antigens, uh, than
this is so dangerous.
So you get the same measlesvaccine, Mr. Kennedy, with all

(02:35:24):
due respect, that is so dangerous.
Your voice would be a voicethat parents would listen to.
That is so dangerous.
I will be voting againstyour nomination because your.
Views are dangerous to ourstate and to our country.
I mean, do you think scienceis dangerous senator?
But believe it or not, by saying it'sscience doesn't actually make it science.
And this is why you should alwayscheck your fucking facts because

(02:35:46):
the scientist that ran this fuckingstudy and published the paper.
That he pulled this supposed scientificfact from, basically said that RFK doesn't
know what the fuck he's talking about.
Other experts say Kennedy's response toAlso, Brooks was based on a Mayo clinic
study that examined racial differencesin the immune response to vaccinations.

(02:36:06):
But the study's author, Dr.
Richard Kennedy, who is not relatedto the nominee, told NPR that the data
doesn't support changing the vaccineschedule based on race doing so he
said would be twisting the data farbeyond what they actually demonstrate.
Guys, grandpa got out again, andif you haven't discovered this yet,
the reason why this is so worryingis because this was the eugenics

(02:36:28):
movement in the United States.
Again, not too long ago.
The eugenics movement was a darkchapter in public health and social
policy, and it has slowly started tocreep back into the public sphere.
For those that don't know, eugenicsis the belief in improving the
genetic quality of human populationsthrough things like selective
breeding and social interventions.

(02:36:49):
So this involves the cheeky littlepractice of getting rid of all the people
with disabilities or mental illnessesor people that are poor or have quote,
undesirable traits, which just sohappened to be all the traits of people
of color and Jewish people at the time.
Huh?
I, I, I wonder why eugenics is likeracism and ableism and classism had a.

(02:37:13):
Fucked up little baby.
And this movement was popularizedright before the Nazi rise to power and
was later used as a tool for the Naziregime, not only in establishing their
racial policies and promoting a quoteperfect Aryan race, but also included
limiting medical access and vaccines tothe groups they wanted to exterminate.
Since Joe Biden issued a sweepingvaccine mandate last week, right

(02:37:36):
wing media and politicians wastedno time in deploying the Nazi
comparisons, calling the move fascist.
Totalitarian authoritarian andinvolving swastikas and the Nuremberg
Code, there's only one problem.
The Nazis didn't actuallyissue a vaccine mandate.
In fact, Republicans would've foundmuch to like in the third reichs vaccine
policies, which was very much in linewith their current recommendations.

(02:38:00):
Above all it relaxed requirements forcompulsory vaccination that had been
in place in Germany for decades at thatpoint, and went with a voluntary approach.
Instead, we even have records of privatediscussions of Adolf Hitler and his
Nazi colleagues clearly showing that.
Far from viewing vaccine mandatesas the key to their genocidal goals.
The opposite was the case.

(02:38:21):
They knew that withholding compulsoryvaccination and other German public
health innovations would help kill moreof the undesirable, inferior people
who they wanted to rid from the world.
And I think the important thing toremember here is it doesn't matter
what RFK says when he's enactingpolicies and stirring up vaccine

(02:38:42):
speculation and anti-VAX rhetoric.
These are the results that occur.
Low income communities, communitieswith less education, these
are the ones that are going tosuffer due to anti-vax rhetoric.
Long-term, this has been his goal.
Limiting vaccine accessibilityhas been his goal.
He literally gets paid.
Millions of dollars toaid an anti-VAX rhetoric.

(02:39:05):
He is making bank off of people sufferingand dying when they don't get vaccines.
Okay?
First and foremost, vaccine skepticismis already higher in communities of
color than it is in white communities,and part of that is because historically
the systems of government have notprotected people of color in the same
way they've protected white people.
In fact, there's a long history of.

(02:39:26):
Systemic and medical violencethat has occurred against these
communities, including thingslike forced sterilization.
We've also seen things written intotextbooks claiming that black people
have a higher pain tolerance leadingto black patients enduring unnecessary
pain or being experimented on.
So we already know what he wants to dowith black children, but RFKs, radically

(02:39:46):
regressive ideas don't stop there.
He wants people with drugaddictions to go to labor camps
disguised as what he is calling.
Wellness camps.
Now, some of you out there might not haveany compassion for drug addicts, and we
would have disagreements about that, butyou might be surprised to know what RFK
Junior actually qualifies as drug addicts.

(02:40:07):
RFK considers anyone who takesmedication for anxiety, depression,
A-D-H-D-B-P-D, schizophrenia,and any psychiatric condition.
A drug addict.
So basically, if you take anyregular medication prescribed by your
doctor for a diagnosed psychiatriccondition, that makes your otherwise
difficult life easier to manage.

(02:40:27):
Sorry, you're a drug addict also.
This is a quick reminder.
In here that RFK is, uh, not adoctor and not certified in any
capacity in the health field.
In fact, he's been called out by doctors,psychologists, sociologists, and other
medical and health professionals for notonly being full of shit, but for actively
spreading misinformation and direct.
Harming communities because of it.

(02:40:49):
And while that he said that he doesn'tplan on forcing people to go to these
camps, he's part of an administration thatalso said they were only going to deport
criminal offenders, and they're now goingafter permanent residents and US citizens.
So pardon me if I don'tfucking believe you.
Health care policy isnotoriously complicated.
So to start this all off, can you giveme a very quick primer on Medicaid?

(02:41:11):
Who does it cover?
How do you qualify and who pays for it?
So Medicaid is a major healthinsurance program in the United States.
It covers about 80 million people.
It is jointly paid for by thefederal government and the states.
And the way you qualify is byfalling into a certain category.
So Medicaid is a littledifferent from Medicare.

(02:41:31):
Medicare is the program for seniors.
You qualify by being over 65.
Medicaid, you have to have somekind of eligibility criteria?
So you’re under a certain income,you have a disability, you are a kid
under a different income threshold.
You’re pregnant.
There’s all these differenteligibility categories.
They vary a little bit state to state.
They’ve changed a lotover the past decade.

(02:41:53):
But basically you have to have somekind of need that the government has
decided, yes, we’re going to have thesepeople qualify for the Medicaid program.
So it’s not just poor people, right?
I think that that’s kind ofthe assumption, but it’s such
a bigger program than that.
Yeah.
And it’s especially grown overthe past decade since Obamacare.
One of the big things Obamacare didis it expanded Medicaid to cover

(02:42:14):
anyone under a certain income.
The very wonky threshold is138% of the poverty line.
I think that hovers aroundlike 17, $18,000 a year for an
individual person at this moment.
And it also covers a lot of things.
You might not expect, nursing care.
Some people might be surprisedto know that Medicare, the
program for the elderly, actuallydoesn’t cover much nursing care.

(02:42:36):
So a lot of people end up having theirnursing care paid for through Medicaid.
It covers children up to about fourtimes the poverty line, so that’s
definitely getting into middle class.
It’s a really reaching programthat’s, you know, covering one
in five Americans right now.
And Medicaid has also been a politicaltarget of Republicans for decades.
Why?

(02:42:56):
Yeah.
You know, there’s a numberof arguments right now.
And the ones I’ve heard kind ofreporting in areas that supported
Donald Trump heavily is, you know, afrustration with government dependance.
The idea that people didn’twork for their benefits.
You know, in the United States, we havea health insurance system where typically
you get your health coverage at work.
So I do hear this argument in kindof Republican circles about, you

(02:43:20):
know, these people aren’t working.
Why should they be getting thiscoverage and that they’re just kind
of relying on a government handout?
Versus doing the work they should bedoing to get a health insurance plan.
Yes.
Those babies got to get them in the mines.
Yeah.
I mean, one thing I would even addabout the adults on Medicaid, the vast
majority of them are working already.

(02:43:41):
Right.
They’re working.
But, you know, maybethey’re a rideshare driver.
Maybe they’re at a low wage job.
They’re working, but they’re notearning enough, and they’re not
getting offered health insuranceat work, which is how they ended up
on, you know, a government program.
Right.
And yet, even as Republicans havevilified Medicaid, as you mentioned,
as a handout as welfare, they’ve failedto make the kind of drastic spending
cuts to the program they say they want.

(02:44:03):
Why?
They’re in a tricky spot.
I mean, you see this this kind of fractureright now between Republican rhetoric
and what they’re actually proposing.
So there’s definitely in the Housebudget, they’re aiming to cut roughly
$880 billion in cuts over a decade.
That works out to about 10% ofall federal Medicaid spending.

(02:44:25):
But there’s also this kind ofhesitance among Republicans
because they know so many of theirvoters rely on these programs.
You’ve had Steve Bannon out theresaying, don’t touch Medicaid.
You’ve got, you know, Josh Hawley,someone who’s not known for his liberal
politics, saying, don’t touch Medicaid.
And I think it boils down to the factit’s really hard to claw back benefits.
We absolutely saw this duringthe Obamacare repeal debate.

(02:44:47):
Once people are using a program andit turns out Medicaid is actually very
well liked, the people on Medicaidgive it very, very favorable remarks.
That makes it really tough for legislatorsto, you know, just take 10% of the
spending away on a program like that.
Yeah.
Let’s let’s get into the budget.
How are they looking to get thosemajor savings from Medicaid?
Yeah, I mean, that’s a wonderful question.

(02:45:08):
And I would like better answers to.
All we have right now is kind of a listof proposals they’re thinking about.
One of the ones I’m pretty sure you’regoing to see pass this Congress is a work
requirement, basically requiring peopleon Medicaid to file paperwork showing that
they’re working, or that they’re lookingfor a job in order to earn benefits.
But you mentioned that mostpeople on Medicaid are working.

(02:45:30):
So it feels like that’s notgoing to get you to 880 billion.
That just is a thing that sounds good.
Well it’s well it definitelydoesn’t get you to 800.
It does get you to about 100 billion.
We’ll get, you know, the small share ofpeople who are not working might no longer
have Medicaid, but there’s also justgoing to be some natural attrition, right?
When you put up more things you have todo and forms you have to fill out, you’re
going to see people fall off of Medicaid.
When you’re looking for those bigcuts, like when you really need to

(02:45:51):
get 880 billion out of the program.
There’s kind of two that jump out at meas the ones that would get you there.
One that’s really floating around.
We’re working on a story aboutit right now is dialing back the
funding for Medicaid expansion.
This is part of Obamacare that expandedMedicaid well beyond the populations,
you know, traditionally covered.
People who are disabled, whoare pregnant, children in low

(02:46:13):
income households to anyone whoearns less than a certain amount.
And you can, you know, shave aboutI think it’s about 500 billion out
of Medicaid spending by reducing thefunding for that specific program.
So that’s kind of getting you there.
The other big one, it’s circulated inconservative circles for a year, is doing
some kind of cap on Medicaid spending.

(02:46:34):
Sometimes, like a per capitacap, that is a certain amount
you get for each beneficiary.
That would be a really big change fromhow Medicaid works now, where there’s
no limits on a per person spending.
You get the medical claims you pay them.
This would put a firm limit
that could be a pretty big cut.
It all depends on like where you setthat, you know, ceiling for spending,

(02:46:57):
how big of a cut that one becomes.
But those are ones kind ofcirculating in the mix right now.
Yeah.
I was thinking about how duringTrump’s first term, he saw some of
his lowest approval ratings everaround the time he tried to repeal
the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare.
I mean, his approval rating waslower after the failed ACA repeal
than it was after the insurrection.

(02:47:17):
So why do you think that wasthe thing that voters seemed
to really hammer him for?
I think it’s personal, right.
You know, more personal than theinsurrection is the idea like, oh, I’m
not going to be able to go to the doctor.
I’m not gonna be able totake my kids to the doctor.
I’m going to have to think about, do Ihave the money to actually see someone?
I think it just really hitspeople in a very deep, personal

(02:47:40):
way that a lot of issues don’t.
So even though you have this big lofty,you know, $880 billion goal now, there
is a true question with, you know, someof the worry you’re already seeing.
The rhetoric around not cutting Medicaidabout whether they can actually, you
know, achieve those levels of cuts andkind of get their party behind them.

(02:48:01):
Do you think that Medicaid is a harderpolitical target than Obamacare is or was?
Yes, I think so, because it’sit covers so many people.
Again, like one in fiveAmericans are on Medicaid.
It’s a huge middle class program at thispoint with the way it funds nursing care.
And I think it’s lesspolarizing than Obamacare was.
I mean, Obamacare always had Obama inthe name and tended to kind of divide

(02:48:24):
along party lines, whereas Medicaid,I think, generally enjoys more support
among Democrats, but it doesn’t have thatsame kind of um political division built
into it in the way that Obamacare did.
And I think Trump seems to know thatbecause we saw evidence with his
win in 2024 of a major politicalrealignment happening along economic

(02:48:46):
lines, he was able to make big gainswith middle and low income voters.
But those are the voters, as you’vementioned, who are more likely to
depend on programs like Medicaid.
What specifically could these cutsto Medicaid mean for those voters
who maybe took a chance on Trump?
Yeah, I mean, they could meanlosing your health insurance.
So there’s about 20 million people who areenrolled on the Medicaid expansion right

(02:49:07):
now, and a lot of them are in red states.
You’ve seen a lot more conservative statessigning up for the Medicaid expansion
since the last time Trump was in office.
So, you know, these are placeslike Montana, Missouri, places
that, you know, do not tend tovote for Democrats quite as much.
If Congress decides todial back the funding.

(02:49:27):
It’ll be the states who have tocome in and fill that budget hole.
And it’s a massive, you know,billions of dollar budget hole.
I don’t think a lot of states are goingto be able to find those kind of funds.
So it really could come down to, youknow, not having health insurance anymore.
Coming down the pike, 600 to $880 billionworth of cuts, and this is all part of.

(02:49:52):
The broader plan to makeAmerica healthy again, I guess.
Um, I'm wondering if you could speaka bit more to what that plan is,
how it's being executed and why it'sbeing executed in the way that it's.
I mean, I wish I had a more likecomplex answer, but it's class warfare,
uh, that's being built by picking onpeople who are most vulnerable and

(02:50:15):
therefore whom they calculate haveleast of a chance of fighting back.
The budget calls for a $4.5 trilliontax cut, half of which, um, is funded
by cutting back government programs.
Half of that comes from cutting Medicaidor other adjacent Medicaid programs.
They're making the gamble that peopleon Medicaid are too diffuse and too
powerless to force a a, a vote otherwise,which is the same gamble they made with

(02:50:42):
the a CA in 2018 and it didn't work.
Um, so, you know, that's my silver liningis that we were able to stop these,
the a CA cuts seven years ago, and thatmodel might work again for Medicaid.
Realistically, you know, I, Ianticipate some, there might
be a cut of some sort, right?
They do have unilateral power,so I think we're fighting for
a 10% cut versus a 1% cut.

(02:51:02):
Both of those are catastrophic, don't getme wrong, but it's the difference, be it.
It's the difference in the livesof millions of people about
whether to stay in these programs.
And so the shape of the cuts arestill to be, to be determined.
There's a lot of ways they can work itthrough a lot of accounting tricks, a lot
of implementation, a lot of architecture.
But at the end of the day, any cutto Medicaid kicks people off the
program and closes facilities thatdepend upon Medicaid payments.

(02:51:25):
Half of rural hospitals in the US aremore or less underwater, and Medicaid's
the only thing keeping them afloat.
We already see like a, a wave of, ofrural hospital closures and closures of
hospitals and clinics in low income areas.
You know, people in, in rural areasand people in poor neighborhoods
have a lot more in common, um,than, than, than they might suspect.
It's the same forces acting inboth either places with low volume

(02:51:48):
of care or low income patients.
Overly index on Medicaidto keep themselves afloat.
Just for people who might not be entirelyfamiliar with how Medicaid actually
works, this is a series of federal grantsthat are made to the state level, and
it's generally up to the state in termsof how they administer those funds.
Right?

(02:52:08):
So right.
At the end of the day, thesecuts are going to be administered
differently in different states.
Correct?
To an extent.
That's a good thing to bring up.
So.
Let's contrast it with Medicare.
Medicare is an entirely federallyfunded, federally run program.
Everything that happens in Medicarehappens in Washington DC and
they take care of everything.
Medicaid is jointly funded by the federalgovernment and the state government

(02:52:32):
and is administered by the state.
So in different states, the federalgovernment pitches in a different amount.
In Wisconsin, it's 60 40,60% federal of 40% state.
Um, in other places it's, you know,70, 30, 50, 55, 45, et cetera.
I think nationwide, it's like 69, uh, 21.
Uh, that's, that's the breakdown.

(02:52:53):
So the federal government is targetingthat 60% or in nationally 69%.
Uh, that's the money thatthat's gonna get cut here.
But yeah, they'll, they'll say,okay, Wisconsin, typically we
give you $6.6 billion this year.
We're giving you $5.6 billion.
A 10% Medicaid cut shakes out to,uh, $1 billion fewer from the federal

(02:53:15):
government to the state of Wisconsin.
And in every single state,Medicaid funding from the federal
government is the largest poolof federal money that they get.
This is a massive part of everystate budget because healthcare
is expensive and there's a lot of.
That's why I think weneed a Medicare for all.
Um, but this is like a massive chunkof federal money that states use.
And so in Wisconsin, at least, just'cause I have those stats on top of

(02:53:35):
my mind, the state government wouldneed to spend an additional $1 billion
just to keep Medicaid where it is now.
And we don't have that money, you know,our entire rainy day fund is $4 billion.
And there's a lot of otherthings pulling of that because
Wisconsin is a emaciated state.
In New York, uh, the projectedcuts would pull $10 billion
from the, the, the state budget.
Like these are massive cuts,even on a small level because

(02:53:58):
of that funding program.
And so the federal government can say,okay, you know, we're gonna cut back
that funding by doing A, B, or C. Andthen the state implements it, or the
state has to kind of maneuver around,um, the, the, the avenue set there.
A lot of this is frustratinglyambiguous because things
haven't been determined yet.
They kind of, like the dog caughtthe car and said $880 billion, which

(02:54:20):
is important note is over a 10 yearperiod, which is about how much
Medicaid spends per year, $880 billion.
Um, and now they gotta figure outhow to, how, how to do that math.
And I don't think they figured thatout yet because it's politically, they,
they're learning that it is politicallyvery dangerous, um, to cut Medicaid.
Is there any particular reasonthat they've gone with 10% or is it

(02:54:41):
just we need to do some austerity?
So here's a number.
I would guess it's because,um, it's a nice, easy number.
Medicaid spends $880 billion a year,so cut it by 10% over a 10 year period.
Um, it's just nice math.
Cool.
So.
In terms then of the immediate.

(02:55:01):
Impacts.
We've talked a little bit about whatthat could look like, rolling back, uh,
particularly provision of care in ruralareas, some of these specialized programs
that deal with specialized populations.
Uh, what are other things that couldhappen as a result of these cuts?
Sure.
So, I mean, they could openup the ability for the state
to restrict who's on Medicaid.

(02:55:21):
Um, Medicaid eligibility requirementswere greatly expanded under the
Affordable Care Act in 40 states.
Um, in 40 states, if you have under138% of the federal poverty line,
um, as your household income, youare eligible for Medicaid full stop.
And then there's like bonusprograms on top of that for
disability children, et cetera.
Is that just in Wisconsinor is that everywhere?

(02:55:42):
That's in all states.
That's, uh, in Wisconsin.
We don't have expansion in Wisconsin.
We cap out at a hundred percent.
Got it.
And we're the, we're the mostgenerous non-expansion, um, state.
Medicaid was rolled out as a, as partof, uh, assistance for families with
dependent children, A FDC, which wasturned into TANF, uh, under the Clinton
era, but it was like an extension ofstate welfare programs, which is why
this whole thing is run by the states.
And for a long time, statescould determine who was

(02:56:04):
eligible and who was not.
There are two consequences for cuttingMedicaid that are non-negotiable,
completely like what's gonna happen?
Totally predictable and unavoidable.
People will lose their healthinsurance and facilities,
which depend upon Medicaid to.
Break even will close.
Now, the particular manner by whichit's determined who loses their health

(02:56:25):
insurance and which facilities closeis largely up to the conversations that
are, that are happening now, and then theresulting conversations that states have.
We don't necessarily know the criteria,how that's how it's gonna shake out.
One thing that's passed arounda lot is work requirements.
A model that has been shown tobe ins insanely and effective
and not cost efficient.

(02:56:45):
Penalizes people, not who aren'tworking, but who can't handle
filling out forms every month.
'cause they're pretty byzantine andthere's no, it's really hard to, to
submit those, submit those documents,estimated that work requirements
would kick I think 5 million peopleoff Medicaid, which is a lot.
There is no way to finagle a cut thatdoesn't result in a similar number of
people losing their health insurance.

(02:57:05):
That's the breaks.
And so the choice Congressis forcing states to make is.
Either raise taxes, spend moneythey can't afford to, to, to match
or cut their Medicaid program.
That's it.
There is no other option.
There's no work around, there's no hack.
And what that looks like is a thing wewill discover together over the course

(02:57:26):
of the, of the, the next few months.
When I hear that, and I'm sure whenyou hear that as well, the immediate
impulse in my gut is, oh no, and I'mafraid, and there's something I think
overwhelmingly I. Disabling about the fearsometimes if you let it really sit there.

(02:57:50):
And this is the thing that I comeback to time and time and time again
as we are facing down the varioustendrils of fascism and the mundanity
of the way that, uh, austerity justsort of ruins our collective society.
And so when you find yourself in thosemoments, I, I, I, I wonder what is it that

(02:58:11):
you do to keep yourself from freaking out?
That's a great question.
I'm trying to figure that out myself.
Yeah.
Um, I mean, I won't lie, I feellike shit basically all the time.
Yeah.
However, you know, you can do a coupleof things with feeling like shit.
You can stay in bed and roll around oryou can get out there and try to like,
help build the thing that pushes back.
Right.
We are living in a declining empire.

(02:58:31):
I think it's more or lessirrefutable at this point.
It's the tagline of our show case studiesin the pop culture of a dying empire.
But you, you've gotta.
I don't know.
You got to, um, it's, this is,this is life or death for a lot of
people, but it's coming for us next.
Yeah.
You know, we're all temporarily healthy.
We're all temporarilyable bodied at some point.
A car accident, a pregnancy, a,a rabid raccoon, fucks up your

(02:58:55):
healthcare, fucks up your life.
So fighting for Medicaid now is away of fighting for yourself later.
That's going to be it for today.
As always, keep the comments coming in.
You can leave a voicemail orsend us a text at 202-999-3991.
You can now reach us on theprivacy-focused messaging app Signal
at the username bestoftheleft.01.
Or simply email me toJay@BestOfTheLeft.Com.

(02:59:17):
The additional sections of the showincluded clips from Nightside, The
Hartmann Report, CounterSpin, All In, TheBradCast, Democracy Now!, Public Health
On Call, On Point, Happy Pancake, What aDay, and The Worst Of All Possible Worlds.
Further details are in the show notes.
Thanks to everyone for listening.

(02:59:38):
Thanks to Deon Clark and ErinClayton for their research work
for the show, and participationin our bonus episodes of SOLVED!
Thanks to our transcriptionist trio, Ken,Brian and Ben for their volunteer work
helping put our transcripts together.
Thanks to Amanda Hoffman for allof her work behind the scenes
and her co-hosting of SOLVED!
And thanks to those who alreadysupport the show by becoming a member

(02:59:58):
or purchasing gift memberships.
You can join them by signing uptoday at BestOfTheLeft.Com/Support,
through our Patreon page, or fromright inside the Apple Podcast app.
Membership is how you get ad freeand early access to our incredibly
good and often funny weekly showSOLVED!, in addition to there being
no ads, and chapter markers inall of our regular episodes, all

(03:00:19):
through your regular podcast player.
You'll find that link in the shownotes, along with the link to join
our Discord community where youcan also continue the discussion.
And don't forget to follow us onall the social media platforms.
We're on BlueSky, but also movinginto video on Instagram and TikTok
with our new show SOLVED!, soplease support us there as well.
So coming to you from far outside theconventional wisdom of Washington, DC, my

(03:00:42):
name is Jay!, and this has been the Bestof the Left podcast coming to you twice
weekly, thanks entirely to the members anddonors to the show from BestOfTheLeft.Com.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Dateline NBC

24/7 News: The Latest

Therapy Gecko

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}#1705 Threatened Social Safety Nets Are Foundational to Healthy Societies

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Dateline NBC

24/7 News: The Latest

Therapy Gecko

All Episodes

#1705 Threatened Social Safety Nets Are Foundational to Healthy Societies

Dateline NBC