May 13, 2025 • 54 mins
What does it say about our society when those with the least are consistently asked to sacrifice the most? In this thought-provoking episode, we examine the troubling paradox at the heart of America's economic discourse.
When President Trump suggested American families could simply "make do" with fewer toys in response to tariff-induced price increases, it highlighted a fundamental disconnect from economic reality. For families already struggling to provide basic necessities, such advice isn't just tone-deaf—it's a painful reminder of who bears the burden in our economic system.
The numbers tell a staggering story. Billionaires like Jeff Bezos earn approximately $1.27 million per hour—more than most Americans make in an entire lifetime. Since the 1970s, worker productivity has increased by 500% while wages have remained stagnant. Meanwhile, 62% of Americans continue living paycheck to paycheck, and even many active-duty military families qualify for government assistance programs.
We also dive into congressional testimony that reveals deep partisan divides over immigration policy, agency funding, and executive authority. The contentious exchanges between lawmakers and administration officials exemplify how governance has become increasingly about political theater rather than substantive problem-solving.
The most pressing question remains: When will we ask those at the top to contribute more proportionally? When will we suggest that perhaps billionaires don't need multiple mega-yachts or dozens of luxury homes while others struggle for basic housing? True economic justice requires a fundamental recalibration of our expectations and an acknowledgment that we cannot build a sustainable society by continuously demanding more sacrifices from those who have already given everything they can.
Tune in, question everything, and join us in reasoning together toward solutions that recognize our shared humanity and commitment to fairness.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
pay in the short term to have a recession.
Look, yeah, everything's okay.
Are you worried it could happen?
Do you think it could happen?
Anything can happen.
When does it become the Trumpeconomy?
It partially is right now, andI really mean this.
I think the good parts of theTrump economy and the bad parts
(00:20):
of the Biden economy.
Are you saying that yourtariffs will cause some prices
to go up?
No, I think tariffs are gonnabe great for us because it's
gonna make us rich.
You said some dollars are gonnacost more, isn't?
Speaker 2 (00:31):
that an acknowledgement that some prices
will go up.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
I don't think a beautiful baby girl needs that's
11 years old, needs to have 30dolls.
I think they can have threedolls or four dolls.
They have 250 pencils.
They can have five.
Speaker 2 (01:02):
Darrell McLean.
I'm your host, Darrell McLean.
Independent media that won'treinforce tribalism.
We have one planet, nobody isleaving, so let us reason
together.
I have to be quite honest.
When I heard the statementsthat you just heard from the
president of the United Statesfrom the president of the United
(01:24):
States, I had a two-part belief.
Thoughts, passion, reflectionscame into my head.
Chest spirit, which is thefirst, was okay.
We can make the case thatAmericans consume too many goods
(01:47):
.
That's one.
The second one was a morevisceral reaction where I
thought how come it's always thepeople who have the least who
are asked to sacrifice the most?
Speaker 4 (02:09):
And.
Speaker 2 (02:09):
I mean that, in the general sense, the poor are
always asked to shore upeverything, they're always asked
to sacrifice and to wait andit'll be your turn.
They're always asked to justwait another year and you'll get
a promotion, you'll get thatraise, and it never happens.
(02:33):
That was that thought.
The other thought was thisignores the fact that there are
some people that already canonly afford to buy one toy, uh,
for their young ones, and nowthat these prices have gone up,
(02:55):
they won't be able to buy anytoys.
And then there's already peoplewho are able to buy zero toys
and that just puts that buyingof one toy for their children
further and further out of reach.
Then, if you do just a quicksearch of is this what the
(03:16):
president believed and it is thepractical application he put
forward to his own children, andyou're going to get a
resounding no, because you'regoing to google, uh, trump young
kids and you're going to findthem in a toy mercedes with,
wrapped around with everypresent that you could imagine,
(03:44):
and you just think is there evergoing to be a time in this
country that people actually askthe billionaires hey, it's your
turn, it's your turn to haveless.
When are we going to say, hey,you don't need $253 billion, you
(04:07):
may be okay with $50 billion?
When are we going to say, hey,you may not need $50 billion,
you may be just fine with $20billion?
When are we going to say youdon't need a 100-foot yacht, you
may be okay with the 70-footyacht.
What are we going to say?
(04:28):
You don't need a vacation homein Florida, and then one in
California, and then one in BoraBora, and then one in Bali and
then one in Japan.
When is it going to be thepeople with the most turn to
sacrifice, even when you comeand look at who joins the
(04:51):
military and who raises theirright hand and says they're
going to give everything theycan up until the point of their
life, up until the point oftheir life?
When you look at the economicbackground of 90% of the people
(05:11):
who raise their right hand, theycome from lower economic
backgrounds.
So much so that a lot of people, while they are serving in
uniform, still qualify for mostgovernment assistance programs.
In uniform still qualify formost government assistance
programs.
It was a shock to me when Ifound out that a lot of people
(05:33):
in the military still were onfood assistance.
They were still getting foodstamps and um, and they
sacrificed the most.
They and they come back.
They have substandard healthcare.
You know you get a different VAsystem and whatever.
They have to fight vigorously toget their veterans benefits A
(05:57):
lot of them.
When they get out, they don'twant anything to do with the
government, so they never eventap into their benefits.
They don't use their collegefund, they don't use a va home
loan, they don't use the uh vafor medical, they don't tap into
veterans disability.
And when are we going to askthe insurance companies that
(06:23):
skim and scam, scheme and doeverything they can to deny you
coverage?
What are you going to ask themto?
Hey, maybe your CEO shouldn'tmake $70 million.
Maybe $20 million is okay.
Maybe $1 million is fine.
That was my initial thoughtwhen I heard this, and it was
(06:47):
kind of funny because thearchitect, karl Rove, had
something to say about this aswell, and he said Donald Trump
saying this came off like he wasthe Grinch who stole Christmas,
or like Scrooge or somebodylike that.
I think we have a clue.
Speaker 6 (07:07):
I thought it was really problematic when he said
well, you know what, the kids,you know those little girls at
Christmas, they don't need $30.
They can do it too, and if theyhave to pay a couple more bucks
for them, you know okay.
Well, it sounds like Mr Scrooge.
Speaker 2 (07:19):
The minimum wage in the United States is $7.25 an
hour.
Meanwhile, the world gains abillionaire every 17 hours, and
this time frame only keepsgetting shorter.
It would take a minimum wageworker over 1,500 years to earn
(07:45):
a billion dollars, provided theywork 160 hours a week and they
don't have any expenses.
And that's just how much youhave to make to get there, in a
decade at least.
Let me just give you a bit moreperspective on this point.
(08:08):
If we were to do thiscomparison and this is going to
be some people that are veryfamiliar Now nobody ever said
that life was fair.
If it was, everyone might earnclose to the same amount of
(08:30):
money, but the wealthiest earnmore cash in an hour than many
people earn their entire lives.
So here's just how much top fewbillionaires earn every hour,
thanks to outsize impact thatthey have on the economy.
(08:51):
Now and I'm doing this mathwhen I'm calculating how much
billionaires are an hourly,we're laying the model down if
they work 40 hours a week, soaround 2,080 hours annually, and
so you can look at how much abillionaire's net worth is, how
much has increased or decreasedover the past 12 months divided
(09:15):
by the figure of 2,080 hoursthey worked in the year and that
is the best estimate to howmuch they've earned on an hourly
basis.
When it goes to somebody who'swell-known, like Jeff Bezos, who
created Amazon, turning it intoa trillion-dollar company
before retiring, his net worthis around $203 billion is around
(09:44):
$203 billion, according toBloomberg, which is reporting
that it actually went up $26.4billion over the last 12 months.
So, using the math from theprevious conversation, that
means he earned $1.27 million anhour last year.
Now, that's not bad,considering that the average
American brings in around 1.7million dollars in their
lifetime earnings.
(10:04):
Plus, bezos is technicallyretired from his role at Amazon
now, so he may have earned thatmoney without even actually
working 40 hours a week.
Is anybody asking him tosacrifice more?
Is anybody asking him to notbuy his loved ones more items or
(10:27):
less items or whatever?
Mark Zuckerberg, the founder ofFacebook, one of the most
recognizable billionaires on theplanet net worth of $154
billion.
Recognizable billionaires onthe planet net worth of 154
billion, up 21 to up to 26.1billion over the last 12 months,
also cited by bloomberg.
That means he earned 1.25million per hour last year,
(10:50):
close to what bezos made.
Bill gates didn't do quite aswell.
Pity the billionaires.
And he didn't do as well as histech peers zuckerberg and bezos
.
Last year, according tobloomberg, his networks
increased by 9.28 billion overthe last 12 months, but comes up
to around to 44 million dollarsper hour.
Warren buffett is the oraclefrom omaha.
(11:11):
Warren buffett, next worth,increased by 12.9 billion
dollars over the last 12 months,according to Bloomberg.
Good, roughly $62 million anhour.
Buffett is a bit unique in hisaddition to the list.
Many of his peers built theirwealth by starting technology.
Companies are assumingprominent roles, and massive
ones, at an early stage.
(11:32):
Buffett, of course, didn't.
He built his fortune byconstantly making genius level
investment decisions throughouthis 50 years in the market.
His savvy has helped himoutperform the S&P 500 market
index over time.
Elon Musk actually saw his networth decline over the past 12
months, unlike many of hiscounterparts on this list.
(11:53):
It dipped by a cool $27.5billion, as Bloomberg cited,
meaning he lost around $1.3million for every hour he worked
.
Now don't feel too bad for ElonMusk.
His net worth of around $202billion still leaves him as the
(12:14):
third wealthiest man in theworld.
He leaves him as the thirdwealthiest man in the world,
plus.
He was earning $333.33 millionper day in early 2002.
Larry Ellison created Oracle,one of the most valuable
companies in the world and amajor player in the growth of
(12:38):
Silicon Valley.
His net worth grew to $8.75billion over the last year, also
according to Bloomberg, meaninghe earned about $42 million for
each hour he worked.
Steve Ballmer was the CEO ofMicrosoft from 2002 to 2004 and
(12:59):
owns the NBA's Los AngelesClippers.
During his time as CEO, ballmeramassed a 4% ownership stake in
the company, which is worthbillions of dollars today and,
as reported by Techopedia, thishelped Ballmer reach a net worth
around $139 billion, cited byBloomberg.
(13:22):
That figure increased $8.67billion over the last 12 months,
good for around $41.6 millionper hour.
(13:45):
Bernard Arnault is currently therichest person on this list,
slightly around $217 billion,according to Bloomberg.
He made his wealth by creatingsome of the most popular luxury
brands on the planet, includingLouis Vuitton, hennessy and Moet
.
Months, arnaud's fortuneincreased by about $9.28 billion
, good for around $44.6 millionper hour.
Suffice to say, he can morethan afford his own products.
(14:13):
Sergey Brin is next.
He's one of the co-founders ofGoogle.
His net worth is $132 billion.
It increased by $8.75 billionover the last 12 months, as also
cited by Bloomberg.
Given that, you can assume heearned $42 million for each hour
he worked.
Jensen Hang, a relatively newentrant into the billionaires
club, had the best year to nameon the list.
The founder of Navita increasedhis net worth by around $33.3
(14:38):
billion over the last months.
According to Bloomberg, that'saround $1.6 million he made
every hour.
Hong's fortune has grown as theAI boom has taken off and his
company has become atrillion-dollar company under
his watch and a darling of theburgeoning industry.
Burgeoning industry Now.
How do these figures compare tothe average salary?
(15:03):
It can be depressing, but it'sa great way to put it into
perspective of just how muchwealthier these people on the
top are compared to other people.
(15:24):
The average US worker earnsonly $34.69 per hour.
According to Indeed.
If you earn that much, youwould have to work 46,122 hours
around 22 years just to equalwhat Jinsing made per hour last
year.
The disparity is even moreimpressive if you look at the
average income on a global basis.
The latest data actually showsthat the average worker on the
(15:46):
planet earns around $8,700annually.
They would need to work nearly184 years to reach what Hung
earns every hour.
The richest people on theplanet earn enough in an hour
for the average person to retirecomfortably.
(16:08):
But don't let this dissuade you, because Because it's okay,
because there's a trade warhappening that has made things
way more expensive, and don'tbuy the 36 dolls, just buy the
(16:41):
two, it'll be better and you'llget something next time.
Sorry if I do not believe thisto be true.
Year after year, this verywell-done documentary by the
(17:02):
former labor secretary His nameis Robert Rice and the
documentary if you want to lookat it is called Inequality for
All and in this documentary theylook at worker productivity and
they watch the workerproductivity go up over 100
percent, 200 percent, 300percent, 400 percent, 500
(17:24):
percent.
And you know what happened whenworker productivity went up
year after year after year inthis model that they track
started in the 70s nothinghappened, nothing.
The wages stayed stagnant.
So for all these years recordbonuses, fairly low unemployment
(17:51):
rate, stock markets boom andbust, housing market crash,
desert storm, iraq, afghanistan,stagnant wages 62% of people
(18:14):
still live paycheck to paycheck.
80% of lottery tickets arebought by the poorest people in
the country, which shows who'sactually desperate.
And again, these are the peoplewho are told to sacrifice.
Can't have had enough ofhearing this.
Speaker 6 (18:36):
Thank you very much, madam Chair.
Madam Secretary, thank you forbeing here.
I'm sorry that I missed yourcall yesterday.
I look forward to workingclosely with you.
I say this with seriousness andrespect, but your department is
out of control.
You are spending like you don'thave a budget.
You're on the verge of runningout of money for the fiscal year
.
You are illegally refusing tospend funds that have been
(18:58):
authorized by this Congress andappropriated by this committee.
You are ignoring theimmigration laws of this nation,
implementing a brand newimmigration system that you have
invented that has littlerelation to the statutes that
you are required, that you arecommanded to follow, as spelled
out in your oath of office.
You are routinely violating therights of immigrants who may
not be citizens, but, whetheryou like it or not, they have
constitutional and statutoryrights when they reside in the
(19:21):
United States.
Your agency acts as if lawsdon't matter, as if the election
gave you some mandate toviolate the Constitution and the
laws passed by this Congress.
It did not give you thatmandate.
You act as if your disagreementwith the law, or even the
public's disagreement with thelaw, is relevant and gives you
the ability to create your ownlaw.
It does not give you thatability.
(19:41):
Let's start with your spending.
You are on track to trigger theAnti-Deficiency Act.
That means you are going tospend more money than you have
been allocated by Congress.
This is a rare occurrence andit is wildly illegal.
Your agency will be broke byJuly, over two months before the
end of the fiscal year.
You may not think that Congresshas provided enough money to
(20:02):
ICE, but the Constitution andthe federal law does not allow
you to spend more money than youhave been given or to invent
money.
And this obsession with spendingat the border, as the
chairwoman mentioned, has leftthe country unprotected
elsewhere.
The chairwoman mentioned, hasleft the country unprotected
elsewhere.
The security threats to theUnited States are higher, not
(20:23):
lower, than when before Trumpcame to office.
To fund the border, you haveillegally gutted spending for
cybersecurity.
As we speak, russian andChinese hackers are having a
field day attacking our nation.
You've withdrawn funds fordisaster prevention.
Storms are going to kill morepeople in this country because
of your illegal withholding ofthese funds.
Your myopia about the border,fueled by President Trump's
(20:44):
prejudice against people whospeak a different language, has
shattered many of this country'smost important defenses.
Now let's talk about theimpoundments.
When Congress appropriatesfunds for a specific purpose,
the administration has nodiscretion as to whether to
spend or not spend that money,unless you go through a very
specific process with thiscommittee.
Let me give you two of manyinstances of this illegal
(21:07):
impoundment.
The first is a shelter andservices program.
Senator Britt may want to zerothat account out, but that
account is funded and it wasfunded in a bipartisan way.
You don't like the program.
Your policy is to treatmigrants badly.
I think that's abhorrent.
But it doesn't matter that youdon't like the program.
You cannot cancel spending inthis program and you cannot use
(21:28):
the funds as you have to fundother things like ICE.
You have also canceledcitizenship and integration
grants, which help lawfulpermanent residents become
citizens, helping them take thecitizenship test.
I know your goal is to try tomake life as hard as possible
for immigrants, but that goal isnot broadly shared by the
(21:49):
American public.
That's why Congress, in abipartisan way for decades, has
funded this program to helpimmigrants in this country
become citizens.
Now let's talk about whyencounters at the southern
border are down so much.
This is clearly going to beyour primary talking point today
.
You will tell us that itrepresents a success, but the
(22:09):
primary reason why encountersare down is because you are
brazenly violating the law everyhour of every day.
You are refusing to allowpeople showing up at the
southern border to apply forasylum.
I acknowledge that you don'tbelieve that people should be
able to apply for asylum, butyou don't get to choose that.
The White House doesn't get tochoose that.
(22:30):
The law requires to processpeople who are showing up at the
border and claim asylum.
Why?
Because our asylum law is abipartisan commitment, an effort
to correct for our nation'sunconscionable decision to deny
entry to Jews to this countrywho were being hunted and killed
by the Nazis.
Our nation Republicans andDemocrats decided, wrote it into
(22:53):
law that we would not repeatthat horror ever again, and thus
we would allow for people whowere fleeing terror and torture
to come here, arrive at theborder and make a case for
asylum.
Finally, let's talk about thesedisappearances.
In an autocratic society,people who the regime does not
like are people who areprotesting the regime.
(23:13):
They are just often picked upoff the street, spirited away,
sometimes to open-endeddetention.
Sometimes they're never seenagain.
What you are doing?
Both the individuals who havelegal rights to stay here, like
Kilmar Obrego-Garcia or studentswho are just protesting Trump's
policies is immoral and, tofollow the theme, it is illegal.
You have no right to deport astudent visa holder with no due
(23:36):
process simply because they havespoken in a way that offends
the president.
You can't remove migrants who acourt has given humanitarian
protection from removal.
Now reports suggest that youare planning to remove
immigrants with no due processand send them to prisons in
Libya.
Libya is in the middle of acivil war.
(23:58):
It is subject to a level fourtravel advisory, meaning we tell
American citizens never totravel to Libya.
We don't have an embassy therebecause it is not safe for our
diplomats.
Sending migrants with pendingasylum claims into a war zone
just because it's cruel is sodeeply disturbing.
(24:23):
Listen, I understand that myRepublican colleagues on this
committee don't view the policythe way that I do.
My Republican colleagues don'tshare my level of concern for
the way that this administrationtreats immigrants.
That's fine, but what I don'tunderstand is why we don't have
consensus in the Senate and onthis committee on the decision
by this administration toimpound the spending that we
(24:47):
have decided together toallocate in defense of this
nation.
We, as an AppropriationsCommittee, we work interminable
hours to write and pass a budget.
This budget is really hard towrite and pass, and so we make
ourselves irrelevant when weallow the administration to
ignore what we have decided.
And then when we look the otherway, when the administration
(25:08):
rounds up immigrants who arehere illegally and have
committed no offenses worthy ofdetainment, we also do potential
irreversible damage to theConstitution.
These should not be partisanconcerns Destroying the power of
Congress, eroding individuals'constitutional rights.
This should matter to bothparties.
Speaker 2 (25:26):
Secretary, thank you for being here and I look
forward to your testimonysnippet of what happened when
Kristi Noem went to Congress totestify.
That was the Senator Murphy andthere is a compilation, of
(25:58):
course, of of Gnome talkingabout, you know, this problem
with the border, the problemwith ICE, right, I don't think
(26:21):
she did a great job.
I don't think I think ICE isout of control.
I thought ICE has been out ofcontrol for a while.
Here's Republican Senator JohnKennedy.
Obviously he's going to have adifferent flavor of questions,
but this is Republican GovernorJohn Kennedy.
Speaker 7 (26:40):
I need a little help from a chair that respects the
members of the committee.
Madam Secretary, I'm sorry tohear this.
Speaker 5 (26:47):
You pretty much secured the southern border,
haven't you?
Speaker 3 (26:50):
Yes, sir, the CBP the—.
Speaker 5 (26:53):
And that upsets some of my colleagues, doesn't it?
They say you've done it thewrong way, haven't they?
Speaker 3 (27:02):
Could you answer that ?
Yes, sir, they do say that.
Speaker 5 (27:08):
Do you think they're upset because you supposedly did
it the wrong way?
Do you think they're upset that?
Speaker 3 (27:15):
you did it at all.
I think they're upset that byPresident Trump enforcing the
law, it happened so quickly andsuccessfully enforcing the law.
Speaker 5 (27:24):
it happened so quickly and successfully.
Now, when President Biden cameinto office, the first thing he
did was get rid of all of thethings we were doing to stop
people from coming into ourcountry illegally, didn't he?
Yes, I mean he.
It was like the price is right,come on down.
Except he said come on in.
(27:48):
And most of my Democraticcolleagues went along with that,
didn't they?
Yes, they did.
In fact, they cheered him on,didn't they?
Is that a yes, yes, sir.
How many people do you thinkPresident Biden let into our
country illegally?
(28:08):
Just give me a ballpark figure.
Speaker 3 (28:10):
Sir.
We don't know for certain, butwe believe it could be upwards
to 20 million people that areillegally in this country.
Speaker 5 (28:16):
So that's like adding 10 Nebraskas to our country,
isn't it?
That's correct 10 Nebraskas toour country, that's correct.
Why do you think PresidentBiden and my Democratic
colleagues did that?
Speaker 3 (28:33):
Do you think they believe in open borders?
I think they believed in openborders and letting people come
into this country that wouldaffect our society and criminals
.
Those other countries emptyingout the worst of the worst,
their mental institutions, theirprisons, came in here and
jeopardized and known terrorists.
Speaker 5 (28:50):
Well, only one or two circumstances are possible.
It seems to me Either PresidentBiden and the Democrats who
supported him believe in openborders, or the people that
President Biden put in charge ofsecuring the border you
wouldn't trust to run a snowball.
Stand right, that is correct.
(29:11):
So nobody is that incompetent,so it has to be.
They just believe in openborders, do they not?
Speaker 3 (29:20):
Yes, because I know the people who were securing the
border and they weren't allowedto do their job.
Do you think they?
Speaker 5 (29:24):
believe that vetting people at the border is racist.
Speaker 3 (29:30):
Yes, I do.
I think, by the way, theyallowed people in and granted
them immediate parole status.
Do you think?
Speaker 5 (29:35):
that President Biden and some of my Democratic
colleagues.
I don't want to paint with toobroad a brush, madam Secretary.
Democratic colleagues, I don'twant to paint with too broad a
brush.
Madam Secretary, thought ofthese foreign nationals in our
country illegally as potentialnew voters.
I do, sir.
Okay, if you're an ordinaryAmerican and you oppose illegal
(30:01):
immigration but you supportlegal immigration, does that
make you a?
Speaker 3 (30:06):
racist?
No, sir.
No sir, not at all.
It just means that you believethere should be a rule of law,
and that's what America wasbuilt on.
Speaker 2 (30:15):
And that's what— you can kind of see the flavor that
Kennedy is going.
This is why nothing in thecountry gets done.
You see the one senatorgrilling the da-da-da-da and the
other one's having like a nicelittle ass-kissing contest.
Do you think that they believein open borders?
(30:36):
And these potential voters?
If you're here illegally, who'srushing to buildings to vote,
to get IDs, to register at theDMV, to go vote Anyway?
Speaker 3 (30:56):
That's what you've been enforcing right Exactly.
We have been following theConstitution and the rule of law
in this country and I want tobe sure.
Speaker 5 (31:03):
I understand, because there's been a lot of confusing
testimony here.
Speaker 3 (31:10):
You've secured the border, have you not?
Speaker 5 (31:13):
This administration has, yes, sir, and some of my
colleagues are upset with youyes, sir, and they say you did
it wrong.
Yes, sir, with you, yes, sir,and they say you did it wrong.
Yes, sir, and do you agree withme that what they're?
really upset about is that youdid it at all?
Yes, sir.
Okay, I want to ask you a lastquestion about our federal
(31:36):
judiciary.
I've said repeatedly that allof us has a moral and a civic
obligation to follow federalorders and I stand by that.
But there have been a lot ofnational injunctions universal
injunctions issued to try tostop you from doing your job.
(31:57):
Where were these judges whenpeople were breaking the law and
coming into our countryillegally?
Were any of them speaking upand issuing national injunctions
against the Democrats?
Speaker 3 (32:13):
I don't believe I can be specific about every single
judge, but these judges that noware trying to stop us from
enforcing our laws, I don'tbelieve or recall them.
Speaker 2 (32:24):
How can you do an injunction on something that's
not in court?
The Republicans would haveneeded to sue the Democratic
whatever whether it's a party orwhether it's a person for
having a specific law that theywere in court for.
Anyway.
Speaker 5 (32:43):
I think, madam Secretary, of one single
solitary federal judge who, whenPresident Biden and my
Democratic colleagues not all ofthem, but many of them-,
gentlemen, silence expired.
Well, secretary, or SenatorMurray went on over about two
minutes, so I'm going to take aminute.
Speaker 4 (33:02):
Well, Senator Van Allen just had to shut down.
Speaker 5 (33:04):
Yes, if you can finish your question.
Can you recall one singlesolitary federal judge when
President Biden and myDemocratic colleagues were
letting 20 million people comeinto the country illegally?
I don't recall.
Can you think of one singlesolitary judge issued a national
injunction to stop them?
No, I can't recall one.
I can't recall.
Can you think of one singlesolitary judge to issue a
national?
Speaker 3 (33:24):
injunction to stop them.
Speaker 5 (33:25):
No, I can't recall one, I can't either.
Speaker 2 (33:29):
If there weren't for double standards, there wouldn't
be any standards at all.
Thank you, Thank you, Senator.
Speaker 5 (33:34):
Kennedy, senator Peters.
Speaker 7 (33:41):
Senator Van Hollen, thank you.
Thank you, madam Chairman.
Madam Secretary, it's good tosee you, and I was glad to see
in your recent testimony thatyou reaffirmed your obligations
to uphold the Constitution ofthe United States, and I
understand you had an exchangewith Senator Murphy on the
(34:03):
Abrego Garcia case, and so I'mjust going to put the question
directly to you Are you or DHSdoing anything to comply with
the 9-0 Supreme Court order tofacilitate his return to the
United States?
Speaker 3 (34:19):
Just yes or no.
This administration isfollowing all federal court
orders.
Speaker 7 (34:23):
This is a simple question.
Speaker 3 (34:24):
It's the president's prerogative on conversations
that happen with the presidentto develop a new order?
This is a simple question I'masking.
Speaker 7 (34:27):
It's the president's prerogative on conversations
that happen with the presidentof El Salvador.
I ask a simple question.
I would you know we have alimited amount of time.
I just asked you, madamSecretary, whether or not you or
the Department of HomelandSecurity are taking any action
to facilitate the nine tonothing Supreme Court decision,
to facilitate his return.
This is a very simple question.
(34:47):
Are you taking any action tofacilitate his return or are you
not?
Speaker 3 (34:51):
This administration is following and complying with
all federal court orders to makesure that we, so you are
because the court order that youfacilitate is returned, so you
are facilitating this return.
Sir Senator, thank you for thequestion but what I would say?
Is that we are following courtorders and that your advocacy
for a known terrorist isalarming that, madam secretary
(35:13):
to me because he's a humansmuggler.
Speaker 7 (35:15):
Adam's secretary, I'm gonna have to reclaim a
terrorist and he's not a UScitizen.
Speaker 3 (35:19):
He's a citizen of El Salvador in his home, if they
were to come back.
Speaker 6 (35:22):
Secretary we would take him immediately.
Speaker 3 (35:24):
All All right, I'm going to have to.
Speaker 7 (35:25):
Madam Secretary, you should know a couple of facts,
then, which is number one in2019, the immigration court said
that he should not be returnedto El Salvador because it would
put his life in danger.
The Trump administration at thetime did not appeal that
decision.
After that, he got a workpermit and was working legally
(35:48):
in the United States of America.
This is also why the districtcourt and the appellate court
and the Supreme Court have ruledas they have.
I suggest that, rather thanmake these statements here, that
you and the Trumpadministration make them in
court under oath, because,despite what you just said, the
(36:09):
federal district court, whosejudge is hearing this case right
now, said and I'm quoting thatthe administration has provided
no evidence linking AbregoGarcia to MS-13 or any other
terrorist activity.
I'm not vouching for the man.
I'm vouching for his process.
Well, yes you are sir.
No, no, no, madam secretary.
Speaker 3 (36:27):
I was that you defend and matter alongside the victim
of your.
Speaker 7 (36:31):
This is political rhetoric.
Speaker 3 (36:33):
Citizens who live here, and I did States Americans
.
I would suggest you advocatefor them as hard as secretary, I
know you're doing a politicalspeech.
Speaker 2 (36:41):
I get it.
Speaker 7 (36:42):
I'm asking questions of law.
No you're just.
Speaker 3 (36:46):
Believe this?
I just believe rhetoric.
Let me ask you this Do you, doyou agree?
Speaker 7 (36:56):
do you agree with Justice Scalia?
In the Supreme Court opinion inReno v Flores that I'm quoting,
it is well established that theFifth Amendment entitles aliens
to due process of law indeportation proceedings.
End of quote.
Speaker 3 (37:05):
Sir, we are utilizing every due process tool that
this Congress has afforded us.
This is Congress decides whatprocess is appropriate for every
situation.
Expedited removal is a dueprocess that you have afforded
us that we are utilizing.
Speaker 2 (37:20):
The alien enemies.
I'm going to reclaim my time,Madam.
Speaker 3 (37:22):
Secretary.
Speaker 7 (37:23):
So we are giving due process and giving using the
tools.
Madam Secretary, this is really.
You know, I'm asking sort ofsimple questions of law and
simple questions like are youcomplying with the nine to
nothing Supreme Court decision?
And you seem to think that'ssome kind of trick question.
Let me ask you this you weredown at at Seacott in in El
(37:45):
Salvador, and you said, and thatI'm quoting, it is one of the
tools in the toolkit that wewill use, and it's well known
that the Trump administration ispaying the government of El
Salvador to keep theseindividuals, including those who
the US courts have determinedwere illegally taken out of the
(38:07):
country, in violation of theirdue process rights.
Have you seen the grantdocument between the United
States and the government of ElSalvador with respect to?
Speaker 3 (38:15):
the CICOT.
It's important that everybodyknows the consequences of what
happens for their actions inthis country when you break the
law and you're a member of aforeign.
Madam Secretary, I asked you aquestion.
Have you seen the document?
You're a member of a foreign.
I asked you a question, haveyou?
Speaker 7 (38:26):
seen the document.
This is not hard.
Yes, I have.
Okay, and what?
What are the provisions of thedoctor?
So do you know who?
What entities in el salvadorare receiving the fire.
Speaker 3 (38:38):
You can see this document as well and have looked
at it for evaluation.
Why have you?
Speaker 7 (38:42):
raised that, madam secretary, because I sent you a
letter, along with many of mycolleagues here on april 8th
asking for, among other things,that document.
Will you respond to the letterthat we sent?
Speaker 3 (38:53):
I will respond to your letter.
Speaker 7 (38:55):
Thank, you, can I get some sense of?
Speaker 3 (38:56):
when we will take a look at it.
I don't remember seeing yourletter yet, but I will start
well it's been there over thesenator's, the Senator's time
has expired, madam Chair.
Senator Kennedy.
Speaker 5 (39:06):
Madam Chair.
Speaker 7 (39:08):
Madam Secretary, I have some additional questions.
Speaker 5 (39:13):
No, sir, that's up to you to manage that time,
senator Kennedy.
Speaker 7 (39:15):
Madam Chair, I need a little help from a Chair that
respects the members of thecommittee.
Speaker 4 (39:19):
Madam Secretary, I'm sorry to working with you and
Ranking Member Murphy in thisCongress.
Madam Secretary, as SenatorMurphy mentioned in his opening
statement, secretary Noem, underyour leadership, we have seen
(39:41):
you ignore our appropriationlaws, our constitution, common
sense and even basic humanity.
Like a lot of Americans, Ireally have been horrified by
the lawlessness and incompetenceand cruelty that we have all
witnessed.
And for all the talk aboutgoing after criminals, you have
sidetracked DHS staff who areinvestigating drug dealers, dhs
(40:08):
staff who are investigating drugdealers, terrorists, human
traffickers and rather thanphoto ops.
We need more of your focus onproviding basic diligence,
because your crackdown has ropedin American citizens and people
who are here legally with nocriminal record.
Now, I'm not going to ask youwhether that was right or wrong.
I know it's wrong, the worldknows it's wrong, and I think
the first thing that history isgoing to say about your
(40:30):
leadership is that you areresponsible for many of these
travesties.
So I'm deeply concerned.
You've deported a four-year-oldUS citizen with cancer, you've
disappeared people to anotorious prison in El Salvador
and you have spent $100 millionin taxpayer dollars to air TV
ads thanking President Trump.
That is really reckless, it'sunacceptable and, in my opinion,
(40:53):
can't continue.
The American people are payingfor this with our taxpayer
dollars and with their mostbasic rights.
Now, in the last three months,you have frozen or canceled over
$100 billion in funding thatwas approved by Congress.
Bipartisan, we are talkingabout everything from disaster
(41:14):
relief to grants that keeppeople safe, but when my staff
has requested information on thestatus of this unacceptable
holdup, the department failed toprovide any acceptable
justification.
This illegal freeze and it isillegal is taking a real toll on
communities who are waiting onthe investments that Congress
(41:36):
has delivered.
So will you commit toimmediately unpausing these
funds?
Speaker 3 (41:43):
Well, Senator, thank you for covering a lot of topics
there.
Let me touch on a few of thoseright away.
What the Trump administrationis doing is enforcing the law
for the first time Under theBiden administration illegal
aliens were prioritized overAmerican citizens.
Now the scales of justice havebeen leveled and no one is
treated better than anyone else.
(42:04):
Citizens are treated the same,and these illegal aliens and
criminals are being deported.
The grants that you arereferencing have been paused and
re-evaluated to make sure thatthey are truly being spent in
the way to which they wereappropriated.
Many of these grants were beingdiverted into things they were
(42:24):
never intended.
These funds were passed on abipartisan basis by members,
absolutely the Bidenadministration perverted them in
how they use them, divertedthem to facilitate illegal
immigration, to house people inplaces like the Roosevelt Hotel
who held illegal criminals.
We're talking about a hundredbillion dollars.
It is not credible to me thatall the recipients of that Madam
(42:48):
Secretary, it is not credible,Madam Chair.
Speaker 4 (42:52):
It is not credible that $100 billion is used to
break the law.
That just cannot be true.
Change this a little bit.
On the other hand, I am veryconcerned that DHS is now
dramatically overspendingfunding that Congress has not
provided.
If you were a CEO doing that, Idon't think you'd be in your
(43:15):
job long.
We need accountability and weneed answers, and that includes
informative responses tooversight questions sent to the
department over the last threemonths.
I am a ranking member on thiscommittee.
I have worked with every memberof this committee.
We take our responsibilitiesserious to fund your department
and others.
We need to have answers, weneed to have accountability and
(43:38):
we need to make sure you're notoverspending money that you were
not allocated.
Speaker 3 (43:43):
Well, thank you for that question.
I will be very clear in thefact.
Do you want me to respond?
Well, you can.
Well, I've worked many, manyjobs in my life, but I also have
been a CEO.
I've run businesses.
Speaker 4 (43:54):
I've been a governor.
I'm not questioning yourcredentials.
Speaker 3 (43:56):
I'm questioning your spending.
We are prioritizing where oursecurity needs are in this
country and we are hoping thatthis body will agree that
reconciliation is necessary toaddress the things that have
been neglected in this countryfor too long, that we have the
technology upgrades, themanpower upgrades that are
necessary.
So the 170 billion dollarrequest for the department of
(44:19):
homeland security is incrediblyimportant to make sure we have
the tools.
Speaker 4 (44:22):
I do have a couple of additional questions.
The fact is that you've notbeen given this funding.
Saying that it's going to comein reconciliation that has not
passed is not an acceptableanswer.
I did want to ask about FEMAand disaster relief.
This is really important.
A lot of disaster relief hasbeen politicized.
You've endorsed eliminatingFEMA outright.
(44:43):
We have seen an upheaval atFEMA that is going to put lives
in jeopardy.
One in five FEMA employees havebeen pushed out, taking this
administration's so-calledbuyout offer.
We are losing indispensablestaff just weeks away from fire
and hurricane season, and over$100 billion in disaster relief
(45:03):
and FEMA grants are still beingheld up.
Over $100 billion in disasterrelief and FEMA grants are still
being held up.
Dhs is making it a lot harderto qualify for relief, something
people in my home state ofWashington are experiencing
firsthand.
Multiple requests fromgovernors have been rejected in
recent weeks, including arequest from our state.
We haven't been given anyresponse about this, and I'm
(45:27):
watching this and I'm thinking.
Has President Trump directedyou to prioritize funding for
Republican states?
Absolutely not.
Have you directed your staff toprioritize funding to
Republican-led states overDemocratic states?
Absolutely not.
Speaker 3 (45:40):
Under this administration, there will not
be any politicization of supportrelief.
Speaker 4 (45:52):
FEMA assistance or grants given based on politics.
Every single person will bevery different than the Biden
administration.
Madam Secretary, there's aclear trend of Republican-led
states getting very fastresponses and funding.
Democrat-led states are beingforced to wait.
We have never treated FEMA as apartisan issue in this country.
Thank you, thank you.
Speaker 2 (46:07):
So I watched a lot of this.
One of the outlets that I giveto is Forbes and there is a full
hearing on Forbes breaking news.
As of five days ago.
Of this hearing, that was anhour and 41 minutes in their
(46:30):
runtime, so you can watch all ofthat and just kind of see
whatever the hell that that was.
Like I said in the beginning, Ithink Rose I think a lot of
(46:51):
people have come to believe cansee that ICE is a rogue agency
and it is, and so much thatthey've accidentally arrested
several American citizens.
(47:11):
The big time YouTube streamer,hassan Piker, was actually
interrogated recently at theairport over his criticism of
Israel, and that is where thistype of stuff is going.
(47:35):
Uh, kristi Noem went andtestified.
There's also the secretary whois responsible for a lot of the
cuts of staff that are happeningat the VA.
(47:57):
He went to Congress and I'vebeen watching that.
He had a very tough go at it.
I would say as well.
Kash Patel had to go.
Who's leading the FBI?
Same thing.
(48:19):
They do a lot, a lot gets done,but when senators get their
chance to go at these secretaryheads, that's kind of what all
of it is job, and you know,aren't they just upset that
(48:49):
you're just so great, and then,if you're not on the team,
you're gonna nail into them and,um, at the end of the day, um,
nothing is going tofundamentally change, but uh, it
is.
It is ridiculous.
But now, because the currentadministration has got past
(49:12):
their 100 days, the DemocraticParty is flexing.
The only muscle they reallyhave is to, when they have these
hearings, to speechify.
My only question is a goodspeech, is a good speech
Eventually to speechify?
My only question is a goodspeech, is a good speech
Eventually?
There's going to have to besome good policy that goes
(49:34):
behind all these speeches, andthat's just kind of where I have
to put it.
Thank you for tuning in.
I got something that I'm goingto open up with tomorrow which
makes this immigrationconversation a lot more
interesting about who immigratesand who they want to be, about
(50:04):
this push to legalize peoplecoming here from a very
interesting country.
We'll just say that.
See you on the next episode.
pay in the short term to have a recession.
Look, yeah, everything's okay.
Are you worried it could happen?
Do you think it could happen?
Anything can happen.
When does it become the Trumpeconomy?
It partially is right now, andI really mean this.
I think the good parts of theTrump economy and the bad parts
(00:20):
of the Biden economy.
Are you saying that yourtariffs will cause some prices
to go up?
No, I think tariffs are gonnabe great for us because it's
gonna make us rich.
You said some dollars are gonnacost more, isn't?
Speaker 2 (00:31):
that an acknowledgement that some prices
will go up.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
I don't think a beautiful baby girl needs that's
11 years old, needs to have 30dolls.
I think they can have threedolls or four dolls.
They have 250 pencils.
They can have five.
Speaker 2 (01:02):
Darrell McLean.
I'm your host, Darrell McLean.
Independent media that won'treinforce tribalism.
We have one planet, nobody isleaving, so let us reason
together.
I have to be quite honest.
When I heard the statementsthat you just heard from the
president of the United Statesfrom the president of the United
(01:24):
States, I had a two-part belief.
Thoughts, passion, reflectionscame into my head.
Chest spirit, which is thefirst, was okay.
We can make the case thatAmericans consume too many goods
(01:47):
.
That's one.
The second one was a morevisceral reaction where I
thought how come it's always thepeople who have the least who
are asked to sacrifice the most?
Speaker 4 (02:09):
And.
Speaker 2 (02:09):
I mean that, in the general sense, the poor are
always asked to shore upeverything, they're always asked
to sacrifice and to wait andit'll be your turn.
They're always asked to justwait another year and you'll get
a promotion, you'll get thatraise, and it never happens.
(02:33):
That was that thought.
The other thought was thisignores the fact that there are
some people that already canonly afford to buy one toy, uh,
for their young ones, and nowthat these prices have gone up,
(02:55):
they won't be able to buy anytoys.
And then there's already peoplewho are able to buy zero toys
and that just puts that buyingof one toy for their children
further and further out of reach.
Then, if you do just a quicksearch of is this what the
(03:16):
president believed and it is thepractical application he put
forward to his own children, andyou're going to get a
resounding no, because you'regoing to google, uh, trump young
kids and you're going to findthem in a toy mercedes with,
wrapped around with everypresent that you could imagine,
(03:44):
and you just think is there evergoing to be a time in this
country that people actually askthe billionaires hey, it's your
turn, it's your turn to haveless.
When are we going to say, hey,you don't need $253 billion, you
(04:07):
may be okay with $50 billion?
When are we going to say, hey,you may not need $50 billion,
you may be just fine with $20billion?
When are we going to say youdon't need a 100-foot yacht, you
may be okay with the 70-footyacht.
What are we going to say?
(04:28):
You don't need a vacation homein Florida, and then one in
California, and then one in BoraBora, and then one in Bali and
then one in Japan.
When is it going to be thepeople with the most turn to
sacrifice, even when you comeand look at who joins the
(04:51):
military and who raises theirright hand and says they're
going to give everything theycan up until the point of their
life, up until the point oftheir life?
When you look at the economicbackground of 90% of the people
(05:11):
who raise their right hand, theycome from lower economic
backgrounds.
So much so that a lot of people, while they are serving in
uniform, still qualify for mostgovernment assistance programs.
In uniform still qualify formost government assistance
programs.
It was a shock to me when Ifound out that a lot of people
(05:33):
in the military still were onfood assistance.
They were still getting foodstamps and um, and they
sacrificed the most.
They and they come back.
They have substandard healthcare.
You know you get a different VAsystem and whatever.
They have to fight vigorously toget their veterans benefits A
(05:57):
lot of them.
When they get out, they don'twant anything to do with the
government, so they never eventap into their benefits.
They don't use their collegefund, they don't use a va home
loan, they don't use the uh vafor medical, they don't tap into
veterans disability.
And when are we going to askthe insurance companies that
(06:23):
skim and scam, scheme and doeverything they can to deny you
coverage?
What are you going to ask themto?
Hey, maybe your CEO shouldn'tmake $70 million.
Maybe $20 million is okay.
Maybe $1 million is fine.
That was my initial thoughtwhen I heard this, and it was
(06:47):
kind of funny because thearchitect, karl Rove, had
something to say about this aswell, and he said Donald Trump
saying this came off like he wasthe Grinch who stole Christmas,
or like Scrooge or somebodylike that.
I think we have a clue.
Speaker 6 (07:07):
I thought it was really problematic when he said
well, you know what, the kids,you know those little girls at
Christmas, they don't need $30.
They can do it too, and if theyhave to pay a couple more bucks
for them, you know okay.
Well, it sounds like Mr Scrooge.
Speaker 2 (07:19):
The minimum wage in the United States is $7.25 an
hour.
Meanwhile, the world gains abillionaire every 17 hours, and
this time frame only keepsgetting shorter.
It would take a minimum wageworker over 1,500 years to earn
(07:45):
a billion dollars, provided theywork 160 hours a week and they
don't have any expenses.
And that's just how much youhave to make to get there, in a
decade at least.
Let me just give you a bit moreperspective on this point.
(08:08):
If we were to do thiscomparison and this is going to
be some people that are veryfamiliar Now nobody ever said
that life was fair.
If it was, everyone might earnclose to the same amount of
(08:30):
money, but the wealthiest earnmore cash in an hour than many
people earn their entire lives.
So here's just how much top fewbillionaires earn every hour,
thanks to outsize impact thatthey have on the economy.
(08:51):
Now and I'm doing this mathwhen I'm calculating how much
billionaires are an hourly,we're laying the model down if
they work 40 hours a week, soaround 2,080 hours annually, and
so you can look at how much abillionaire's net worth is, how
much has increased or decreasedover the past 12 months divided
(09:15):
by the figure of 2,080 hoursthey worked in the year and that
is the best estimate to howmuch they've earned on an hourly
basis.
When it goes to somebody who'swell-known, like Jeff Bezos, who
created Amazon, turning it intoa trillion-dollar company
before retiring, his net worthis around $203 billion is around
(09:44):
$203 billion, according toBloomberg, which is reporting
that it actually went up $26.4billion over the last 12 months.
So, using the math from theprevious conversation, that
means he earned $1.27 million anhour last year.
Now, that's not bad,considering that the average
American brings in around 1.7million dollars in their
lifetime earnings.
(10:04):
Plus, bezos is technicallyretired from his role at Amazon
now, so he may have earned thatmoney without even actually
working 40 hours a week.
Is anybody asking him tosacrifice more?
Is anybody asking him to notbuy his loved ones more items or
(10:27):
less items or whatever?
Mark Zuckerberg, the founder ofFacebook, one of the most
recognizable billionaires on theplanet net worth of $154
billion.
Recognizable billionaires onthe planet net worth of 154
billion, up 21 to up to 26.1billion over the last 12 months,
also cited by bloomberg.
That means he earned 1.25million per hour last year,
(10:50):
close to what bezos made.
Bill gates didn't do quite aswell.
Pity the billionaires.
And he didn't do as well as histech peers zuckerberg and bezos
.
Last year, according tobloomberg, his networks
increased by 9.28 billion overthe last 12 months, but comes up
to around to 44 million dollarsper hour.
Warren buffett is the oraclefrom omaha.
(11:11):
Warren buffett, next worth,increased by 12.9 billion
dollars over the last 12 months,according to Bloomberg.
Good, roughly $62 million anhour.
Buffett is a bit unique in hisaddition to the list.
Many of his peers built theirwealth by starting technology.
Companies are assumingprominent roles, and massive
ones, at an early stage.
(11:32):
Buffett, of course, didn't.
He built his fortune byconstantly making genius level
investment decisions throughouthis 50 years in the market.
His savvy has helped himoutperform the S&P 500 market
index over time.
Elon Musk actually saw his networth decline over the past 12
months, unlike many of hiscounterparts on this list.
(11:53):
It dipped by a cool $27.5billion, as Bloomberg cited,
meaning he lost around $1.3million for every hour he worked
.
Now don't feel too bad for ElonMusk.
His net worth of around $202billion still leaves him as the
(12:14):
third wealthiest man in theworld.
He leaves him as the thirdwealthiest man in the world,
plus.
He was earning $333.33 millionper day in early 2002.
Larry Ellison created Oracle,one of the most valuable
companies in the world and amajor player in the growth of
(12:38):
Silicon Valley.
His net worth grew to $8.75billion over the last year, also
according to Bloomberg, meaninghe earned about $42 million for
each hour he worked.
Steve Ballmer was the CEO ofMicrosoft from 2002 to 2004 and
(12:59):
owns the NBA's Los AngelesClippers.
During his time as CEO, ballmeramassed a 4% ownership stake in
the company, which is worthbillions of dollars today and,
as reported by Techopedia, thishelped Ballmer reach a net worth
around $139 billion, cited byBloomberg.
(13:22):
That figure increased $8.67billion over the last 12 months,
good for around $41.6 millionper hour.
(13:45):
Bernard Arnault is currently therichest person on this list,
slightly around $217 billion,according to Bloomberg.
He made his wealth by creatingsome of the most popular luxury
brands on the planet, includingLouis Vuitton, hennessy and Moet
.
Months, arnaud's fortuneincreased by about $9.28 billion
, good for around $44.6 millionper hour.
Suffice to say, he can morethan afford his own products.
(14:13):
Sergey Brin is next.
He's one of the co-founders ofGoogle.
His net worth is $132 billion.
It increased by $8.75 billionover the last 12 months, as also
cited by Bloomberg.
Given that, you can assume heearned $42 million for each hour
he worked.
Jensen Hang, a relatively newentrant into the billionaires
club, had the best year to nameon the list.
The founder of Navita increasedhis net worth by around $33.3
(14:38):
billion over the last months.
According to Bloomberg, that'saround $1.6 million he made
every hour.
Hong's fortune has grown as theAI boom has taken off and his
company has become atrillion-dollar company under
his watch and a darling of theburgeoning industry.
Burgeoning industry Now.
How do these figures compare tothe average salary?
(15:03):
It can be depressing, but it'sa great way to put it into
perspective of just how muchwealthier these people on the
top are compared to other people.
(15:24):
The average US worker earnsonly $34.69 per hour.
According to Indeed.
If you earn that much, youwould have to work 46,122 hours
around 22 years just to equalwhat Jinsing made per hour last
year.
The disparity is even moreimpressive if you look at the
average income on a global basis.
The latest data actually showsthat the average worker on the
(15:46):
planet earns around $8,700annually.
They would need to work nearly184 years to reach what Hung
earns every hour.
The richest people on theplanet earn enough in an hour
for the average person to retirecomfortably.
(16:08):
But don't let this dissuade you, because Because it's okay,
because there's a trade warhappening that has made things
way more expensive, and don'tbuy the 36 dolls, just buy the
(16:41):
two, it'll be better and you'llget something next time.
Sorry if I do not believe thisto be true.
Year after year, this verywell-done documentary by the
(17:02):
former labor secretary His nameis Robert Rice and the
documentary if you want to lookat it is called Inequality for
All and in this documentary theylook at worker productivity and
they watch the workerproductivity go up over 100
percent, 200 percent, 300percent, 400 percent, 500
(17:24):
percent.
And you know what happened whenworker productivity went up
year after year after year inthis model that they track
started in the 70s nothinghappened, nothing.
The wages stayed stagnant.
So for all these years recordbonuses, fairly low unemployment
(17:51):
rate, stock markets boom andbust, housing market crash,
desert storm, iraq, afghanistan,stagnant wages 62% of people
(18:14):
still live paycheck to paycheck.
80% of lottery tickets arebought by the poorest people in
the country, which shows who'sactually desperate.
And again, these are the peoplewho are told to sacrifice.
Can't have had enough ofhearing this.
Speaker 6 (18:36):
Thank you very much, madam Chair.
Madam Secretary, thank you forbeing here.
I'm sorry that I missed yourcall yesterday.
I look forward to workingclosely with you.
I say this with seriousness andrespect, but your department is
out of control.
You are spending like you don'thave a budget.
You're on the verge of runningout of money for the fiscal year
.
You are illegally refusing tospend funds that have been
(18:58):
authorized by this Congress andappropriated by this committee.
You are ignoring theimmigration laws of this nation,
implementing a brand newimmigration system that you have
invented that has littlerelation to the statutes that
you are required, that you arecommanded to follow, as spelled
out in your oath of office.
You are routinely violating therights of immigrants who may
not be citizens, but, whetheryou like it or not, they have
constitutional and statutoryrights when they reside in the
(19:21):
United States.
Your agency acts as if lawsdon't matter, as if the election
gave you some mandate toviolate the Constitution and the
laws passed by this Congress.
It did not give you thatmandate.
You act as if your disagreementwith the law, or even the
public's disagreement with thelaw, is relevant and gives you
the ability to create your ownlaw.
It does not give you thatability.
(19:41):
Let's start with your spending.
You are on track to trigger theAnti-Deficiency Act.
That means you are going tospend more money than you have
been allocated by Congress.
This is a rare occurrence andit is wildly illegal.
Your agency will be broke byJuly, over two months before the
end of the fiscal year.
You may not think that Congresshas provided enough money to
(20:02):
ICE, but the Constitution andthe federal law does not allow
you to spend more money than youhave been given or to invent
money.
And this obsession with spendingat the border, as the
chairwoman mentioned, has leftthe country unprotected
elsewhere.
The chairwoman mentioned, hasleft the country unprotected
elsewhere.
The security threats to theUnited States are higher, not
(20:23):
lower, than when before Trumpcame to office.
To fund the border, you haveillegally gutted spending for
cybersecurity.
As we speak, russian andChinese hackers are having a
field day attacking our nation.
You've withdrawn funds fordisaster prevention.
Storms are going to kill morepeople in this country because
of your illegal withholding ofthese funds.
Your myopia about the border,fueled by President Trump's
(20:44):
prejudice against people whospeak a different language, has
shattered many of this country'smost important defenses.
Now let's talk about theimpoundments.
When Congress appropriatesfunds for a specific purpose,
the administration has nodiscretion as to whether to
spend or not spend that money,unless you go through a very
specific process with thiscommittee.
Let me give you two of manyinstances of this illegal
(21:07):
impoundment.
The first is a shelter andservices program.
Senator Britt may want to zerothat account out, but that
account is funded and it wasfunded in a bipartisan way.
You don't like the program.
Your policy is to treatmigrants badly.
I think that's abhorrent.
But it doesn't matter that youdon't like the program.
You cannot cancel spending inthis program and you cannot use
(21:28):
the funds as you have to fundother things like ICE.
You have also canceledcitizenship and integration
grants, which help lawfulpermanent residents become
citizens, helping them take thecitizenship test.
I know your goal is to try tomake life as hard as possible
for immigrants, but that goal isnot broadly shared by the
(21:49):
American public.
That's why Congress, in abipartisan way for decades, has
funded this program to helpimmigrants in this country
become citizens.
Now let's talk about whyencounters at the southern
border are down so much.
This is clearly going to beyour primary talking point today
.
You will tell us that itrepresents a success, but the
(22:09):
primary reason why encountersare down is because you are
brazenly violating the law everyhour of every day.
You are refusing to allowpeople showing up at the
southern border to apply forasylum.
I acknowledge that you don'tbelieve that people should be
able to apply for asylum, butyou don't get to choose that.
The White House doesn't get tochoose that.
(22:30):
The law requires to processpeople who are showing up at the
border and claim asylum.
Why?
Because our asylum law is abipartisan commitment, an effort
to correct for our nation'sunconscionable decision to deny
entry to Jews to this countrywho were being hunted and killed
by the Nazis.
Our nation Republicans andDemocrats decided, wrote it into
(22:53):
law that we would not repeatthat horror ever again, and thus
we would allow for people whowere fleeing terror and torture
to come here, arrive at theborder and make a case for
asylum.
Finally, let's talk about thesedisappearances.
In an autocratic society,people who the regime does not
like are people who areprotesting the regime.
(23:13):
They are just often picked upoff the street, spirited away,
sometimes to open-endeddetention.
Sometimes they're never seenagain.
What you are doing?
Both the individuals who havelegal rights to stay here, like
Kilmar Obrego-Garcia or studentswho are just protesting Trump's
policies is immoral and, tofollow the theme, it is illegal.
You have no right to deport astudent visa holder with no due
(23:36):
process simply because they havespoken in a way that offends
the president.
You can't remove migrants who acourt has given humanitarian
protection from removal.
Now reports suggest that youare planning to remove
immigrants with no due processand send them to prisons in
Libya.
Libya is in the middle of acivil war.
(23:58):
It is subject to a level fourtravel advisory, meaning we tell
American citizens never totravel to Libya.
We don't have an embassy therebecause it is not safe for our
diplomats.
Sending migrants with pendingasylum claims into a war zone
just because it's cruel is sodeeply disturbing.
(24:23):
Listen, I understand that myRepublican colleagues on this
committee don't view the policythe way that I do.
My Republican colleagues don'tshare my level of concern for
the way that this administrationtreats immigrants.
That's fine, but what I don'tunderstand is why we don't have
consensus in the Senate and onthis committee on the decision
by this administration toimpound the spending that we
(24:47):
have decided together toallocate in defense of this
nation.
We, as an AppropriationsCommittee, we work interminable
hours to write and pass a budget.
This budget is really hard towrite and pass, and so we make
ourselves irrelevant when weallow the administration to
ignore what we have decided.
And then when we look the otherway, when the administration
(25:08):
rounds up immigrants who arehere illegally and have
committed no offenses worthy ofdetainment, we also do potential
irreversible damage to theConstitution.
These should not be partisanconcerns Destroying the power of
Congress, eroding individuals'constitutional rights.
This should matter to bothparties.
Speaker 2 (25:26):
Secretary, thank you for being here and I look
forward to your testimonysnippet of what happened when
Kristi Noem went to Congress totestify.
That was the Senator Murphy andthere is a compilation, of
(25:58):
course, of of Gnome talkingabout, you know, this problem
with the border, the problemwith ICE, right, I don't think
(26:21):
she did a great job.
I don't think I think ICE isout of control.
I thought ICE has been out ofcontrol for a while.
Here's Republican Senator JohnKennedy.
Obviously he's going to have adifferent flavor of questions,
but this is Republican GovernorJohn Kennedy.
Speaker 7 (26:40):
I need a little help from a chair that respects the
members of the committee.
Madam Secretary, I'm sorry tohear this.
Speaker 5 (26:47):
You pretty much secured the southern border,
haven't you?
Speaker 3 (26:50):
Yes, sir, the CBP the—.
Speaker 5 (26:53):
And that upsets some of my colleagues, doesn't it?
They say you've done it thewrong way, haven't they?
Speaker 3 (27:02):
Could you answer that ?
Yes, sir, they do say that.
Speaker 5 (27:08):
Do you think they're upset because you supposedly did
it the wrong way?
Do you think they're upset that?
Speaker 3 (27:15):
you did it at all.
I think they're upset that byPresident Trump enforcing the
law, it happened so quickly andsuccessfully enforcing the law.
Speaker 5 (27:24):
it happened so quickly and successfully.
Now, when President Biden cameinto office, the first thing he
did was get rid of all of thethings we were doing to stop
people from coming into ourcountry illegally, didn't he?
Yes, I mean he.
It was like the price is right,come on down.
Except he said come on in.
(27:48):
And most of my Democraticcolleagues went along with that,
didn't they?
Yes, they did.
In fact, they cheered him on,didn't they?
Is that a yes, yes, sir.
How many people do you thinkPresident Biden let into our
country illegally?
(28:08):
Just give me a ballpark figure.
Speaker 3 (28:10):
Sir.
We don't know for certain, butwe believe it could be upwards
to 20 million people that areillegally in this country.
Speaker 5 (28:16):
So that's like adding 10 Nebraskas to our country,
isn't it?
That's correct 10 Nebraskas toour country, that's correct.
Why do you think PresidentBiden and my Democratic
colleagues did that?
Speaker 3 (28:33):
Do you think they believe in open borders?
I think they believed in openborders and letting people come
into this country that wouldaffect our society and criminals
.
Those other countries emptyingout the worst of the worst,
their mental institutions, theirprisons, came in here and
jeopardized and known terrorists.
Speaker 5 (28:50):
Well, only one or two circumstances are possible.
It seems to me Either PresidentBiden and the Democrats who
supported him believe in openborders, or the people that
President Biden put in charge ofsecuring the border you
wouldn't trust to run a snowball.
Stand right, that is correct.
(29:11):
So nobody is that incompetent,so it has to be.
They just believe in openborders, do they not?
Speaker 3 (29:20):
Yes, because I know the people who were securing the
border and they weren't allowedto do their job.
Do you think they?
Speaker 5 (29:24):
believe that vetting people at the border is racist.
Speaker 3 (29:30):
Yes, I do.
I think, by the way, theyallowed people in and granted
them immediate parole status.
Do you think?
Speaker 5 (29:35):
that President Biden and some of my Democratic
colleagues.
I don't want to paint with toobroad a brush, madam Secretary.
Democratic colleagues, I don'twant to paint with too broad a
brush.
Madam Secretary, thought ofthese foreign nationals in our
country illegally as potentialnew voters.
I do, sir.
Okay, if you're an ordinaryAmerican and you oppose illegal
(30:01):
immigration but you supportlegal immigration, does that
make you a?
Speaker 3 (30:06):
racist?
No, sir.
No sir, not at all.
It just means that you believethere should be a rule of law,
and that's what America wasbuilt on.
Speaker 2 (30:15):
And that's what— you can kind of see the flavor that
Kennedy is going.
This is why nothing in thecountry gets done.
You see the one senatorgrilling the da-da-da-da and the
other one's having like a nicelittle ass-kissing contest.
Do you think that they believein open borders?
(30:36):
And these potential voters?
If you're here illegally, who'srushing to buildings to vote,
to get IDs, to register at theDMV, to go vote Anyway?
Speaker 3 (30:56):
That's what you've been enforcing right Exactly.
We have been following theConstitution and the rule of law
in this country and I want tobe sure.
Speaker 5 (31:03):
I understand, because there's been a lot of confusing
testimony here.
Speaker 3 (31:10):
You've secured the border, have you not?
Speaker 5 (31:13):
This administration has, yes, sir, and some of my
colleagues are upset with youyes, sir, and they say you did
it wrong.
Yes, sir, with you, yes, sir,and they say you did it wrong.
Yes, sir, and do you agree withme that what they're?
really upset about is that youdid it at all?
Yes, sir.
Okay, I want to ask you a lastquestion about our federal
(31:36):
judiciary.
I've said repeatedly that allof us has a moral and a civic
obligation to follow federalorders and I stand by that.
But there have been a lot ofnational injunctions universal
injunctions issued to try tostop you from doing your job.
(31:57):
Where were these judges whenpeople were breaking the law and
coming into our countryillegally?
Were any of them speaking upand issuing national injunctions
against the Democrats?
Speaker 3 (32:13):
I don't believe I can be specific about every single
judge, but these judges that noware trying to stop us from
enforcing our laws, I don'tbelieve or recall them.
Speaker 2 (32:24):
How can you do an injunction on something that's
not in court?
The Republicans would haveneeded to sue the Democratic
whatever whether it's a party orwhether it's a person for
having a specific law that theywere in court for.
Anyway.
Speaker 5 (32:43):
I think, madam Secretary, of one single
solitary federal judge who, whenPresident Biden and my
Democratic colleagues not all ofthem, but many of them-,
gentlemen, silence expired.
Well, secretary, or SenatorMurray went on over about two
minutes, so I'm going to take aminute.
Speaker 4 (33:02):
Well, Senator Van Allen just had to shut down.
Speaker 5 (33:04):
Yes, if you can finish your question.
Can you recall one singlesolitary federal judge when
President Biden and myDemocratic colleagues were
letting 20 million people comeinto the country illegally?
I don't recall.
Can you think of one singlesolitary judge issued a national
injunction to stop them?
No, I can't recall one.
I can't recall.
Can you think of one singlesolitary judge to issue a
national?
Speaker 3 (33:24):
injunction to stop them.
Speaker 5 (33:25):
No, I can't recall one, I can't either.
Speaker 2 (33:29):
If there weren't for double standards, there wouldn't
be any standards at all.
Thank you, Thank you, Senator.
Speaker 5 (33:34):
Kennedy, senator Peters.
Speaker 7 (33:41):
Senator Van Hollen, thank you.
Thank you, madam Chairman.
Madam Secretary, it's good tosee you, and I was glad to see
in your recent testimony thatyou reaffirmed your obligations
to uphold the Constitution ofthe United States, and I
understand you had an exchangewith Senator Murphy on the
(34:03):
Abrego Garcia case, and so I'mjust going to put the question
directly to you Are you or DHSdoing anything to comply with
the 9-0 Supreme Court order tofacilitate his return to the
United States?
Speaker 3 (34:19):
Just yes or no.
This administration isfollowing all federal court
orders.
Speaker 7 (34:23):
This is a simple question.
Speaker 3 (34:24):
It's the president's prerogative on conversations
that happen with the presidentto develop a new order?
This is a simple question I'masking.
Speaker 7 (34:27):
It's the president's prerogative on conversations
that happen with the presidentof El Salvador.
I ask a simple question.
I would you know we have alimited amount of time.
I just asked you, madamSecretary, whether or not you or
the Department of HomelandSecurity are taking any action
to facilitate the nine tonothing Supreme Court decision,
to facilitate his return.
This is a very simple question.
(34:47):
Are you taking any action tofacilitate his return or are you
not?
Speaker 3 (34:51):
This administration is following and complying with
all federal court orders to makesure that we, so you are
because the court order that youfacilitate is returned, so you
are facilitating this return.
Sir Senator, thank you for thequestion but what I would say?
Is that we are following courtorders and that your advocacy
for a known terrorist isalarming that, madam secretary
(35:13):
to me because he's a humansmuggler.
Speaker 7 (35:15):
Adam's secretary, I'm gonna have to reclaim a
terrorist and he's not a UScitizen.
Speaker 3 (35:19):
He's a citizen of El Salvador in his home, if they
were to come back.
Speaker 6 (35:22):
Secretary we would take him immediately.
Speaker 3 (35:24):
All All right, I'm going to have to.
Speaker 7 (35:25):
Madam Secretary, you should know a couple of facts,
then, which is number one in2019, the immigration court said
that he should not be returnedto El Salvador because it would
put his life in danger.
The Trump administration at thetime did not appeal that
decision.
After that, he got a workpermit and was working legally
(35:48):
in the United States of America.
This is also why the districtcourt and the appellate court
and the Supreme Court have ruledas they have.
I suggest that, rather thanmake these statements here, that
you and the Trumpadministration make them in
court under oath, because,despite what you just said, the
(36:09):
federal district court, whosejudge is hearing this case right
now, said and I'm quoting thatthe administration has provided
no evidence linking AbregoGarcia to MS-13 or any other
terrorist activity.
I'm not vouching for the man.
I'm vouching for his process.
Well, yes you are sir.
No, no, no, madam secretary.
Speaker 3 (36:27):
I was that you defend and matter alongside the victim
of your.
Speaker 7 (36:31):
This is political rhetoric.
Speaker 3 (36:33):
Citizens who live here, and I did States Americans
.
I would suggest you advocatefor them as hard as secretary, I
know you're doing a politicalspeech.
Speaker 2 (36:41):
I get it.
Speaker 7 (36:42):
I'm asking questions of law.
No you're just.
Speaker 3 (36:46):
Believe this?
I just believe rhetoric.
Let me ask you this Do you, doyou agree?
Speaker 7 (36:56):
do you agree with Justice Scalia?
In the Supreme Court opinion inReno v Flores that I'm quoting,
it is well established that theFifth Amendment entitles aliens
to due process of law indeportation proceedings.
End of quote.
Speaker 3 (37:05):
Sir, we are utilizing every due process tool that
this Congress has afforded us.
This is Congress decides whatprocess is appropriate for every
situation.
Expedited removal is a dueprocess that you have afforded
us that we are utilizing.
Speaker 2 (37:20):
The alien enemies.
I'm going to reclaim my time,Madam.
Speaker 3 (37:22):
Secretary.
Speaker 7 (37:23):
So we are giving due process and giving using the
tools.
Madam Secretary, this is really.
You know, I'm asking sort ofsimple questions of law and
simple questions like are youcomplying with the nine to
nothing Supreme Court decision?
And you seem to think that'ssome kind of trick question.
Let me ask you this you weredown at at Seacott in in El
(37:45):
Salvador, and you said, and thatI'm quoting, it is one of the
tools in the toolkit that wewill use, and it's well known
that the Trump administration ispaying the government of El
Salvador to keep theseindividuals, including those who
the US courts have determinedwere illegally taken out of the
(38:07):
country, in violation of theirdue process rights.
Have you seen the grantdocument between the United
States and the government of ElSalvador with respect to?
Speaker 3 (38:15):
the CICOT.
It's important that everybodyknows the consequences of what
happens for their actions inthis country when you break the
law and you're a member of aforeign.
Madam Secretary, I asked you aquestion.
Have you seen the document?
You're a member of a foreign.
I asked you a question, haveyou?
Speaker 7 (38:26):
seen the document.
This is not hard.
Yes, I have.
Okay, and what?
What are the provisions of thedoctor?
So do you know who?
What entities in el salvadorare receiving the fire.
Speaker 3 (38:38):
You can see this document as well and have looked
at it for evaluation.
Why have you?
Speaker 7 (38:42):
raised that, madam secretary, because I sent you a
letter, along with many of mycolleagues here on april 8th
asking for, among other things,that document.
Will you respond to the letterthat we sent?
Speaker 3 (38:53):
I will respond to your letter.
Speaker 7 (38:55):
Thank, you, can I get some sense of?
Speaker 3 (38:56):
when we will take a look at it.
I don't remember seeing yourletter yet, but I will start
well it's been there over thesenator's, the Senator's time
has expired, madam Chair.
Senator Kennedy.
Speaker 5 (39:06):
Madam Chair.
Speaker 7 (39:08):
Madam Secretary, I have some additional questions.
Speaker 5 (39:13):
No, sir, that's up to you to manage that time,
senator Kennedy.
Speaker 7 (39:15):
Madam Chair, I need a little help from a Chair that
respects the members of thecommittee.
Speaker 4 (39:19):
Madam Secretary, I'm sorry to working with you and
Ranking Member Murphy in thisCongress.
Madam Secretary, as SenatorMurphy mentioned in his opening
statement, secretary Noem, underyour leadership, we have seen
(39:41):
you ignore our appropriationlaws, our constitution, common
sense and even basic humanity.
Like a lot of Americans, Ireally have been horrified by
the lawlessness and incompetenceand cruelty that we have all
witnessed.
And for all the talk aboutgoing after criminals, you have
sidetracked DHS staff who areinvestigating drug dealers, dhs
(40:08):
staff who are investigating drugdealers, terrorists, human
traffickers and rather thanphoto ops.
We need more of your focus onproviding basic diligence,
because your crackdown has ropedin American citizens and people
who are here legally with nocriminal record.
Now, I'm not going to ask youwhether that was right or wrong.
I know it's wrong, the worldknows it's wrong, and I think
the first thing that history isgoing to say about your
(40:30):
leadership is that you areresponsible for many of these
travesties.
So I'm deeply concerned.
You've deported a four-year-oldUS citizen with cancer, you've
disappeared people to anotorious prison in El Salvador
and you have spent $100 millionin taxpayer dollars to air TV
ads thanking President Trump.
That is really reckless, it'sunacceptable and, in my opinion,
(40:53):
can't continue.
The American people are payingfor this with our taxpayer
dollars and with their mostbasic rights.
Now, in the last three months,you have frozen or canceled over
$100 billion in funding thatwas approved by Congress.
Bipartisan, we are talkingabout everything from disaster
(41:14):
relief to grants that keeppeople safe, but when my staff
has requested information on thestatus of this unacceptable
holdup, the department failed toprovide any acceptable
justification.
This illegal freeze and it isillegal is taking a real toll on
communities who are waiting onthe investments that Congress
(41:36):
has delivered.
So will you commit toimmediately unpausing these
funds?
Speaker 3 (41:43):
Well, Senator, thank you for covering a lot of topics
there.
Let me touch on a few of thoseright away.
What the Trump administrationis doing is enforcing the law
for the first time Under theBiden administration illegal
aliens were prioritized overAmerican citizens.
Now the scales of justice havebeen leveled and no one is
treated better than anyone else.
(42:04):
Citizens are treated the same,and these illegal aliens and
criminals are being deported.
The grants that you arereferencing have been paused and
re-evaluated to make sure thatthey are truly being spent in
the way to which they wereappropriated.
Many of these grants were beingdiverted into things they were
(42:24):
never intended.
These funds were passed on abipartisan basis by members,
absolutely the Bidenadministration perverted them in
how they use them, divertedthem to facilitate illegal
immigration, to house people inplaces like the Roosevelt Hotel
who held illegal criminals.
We're talking about a hundredbillion dollars.
It is not credible to me thatall the recipients of that Madam
(42:48):
Secretary, it is not credible,Madam Chair.
Speaker 4 (42:52):
It is not credible that $100 billion is used to
break the law.
That just cannot be true.
Change this a little bit.
On the other hand, I am veryconcerned that DHS is now
dramatically overspendingfunding that Congress has not
provided.
If you were a CEO doing that, Idon't think you'd be in your
(43:15):
job long.
We need accountability and weneed answers, and that includes
informative responses tooversight questions sent to the
department over the last threemonths.
I am a ranking member on thiscommittee.
I have worked with every memberof this committee.
We take our responsibilitiesserious to fund your department
and others.
We need to have answers, weneed to have accountability and
(43:38):
we need to make sure you're notoverspending money that you were
not allocated.
Speaker 3 (43:43):
Well, thank you for that question.
I will be very clear in thefact.
Do you want me to respond?
Well, you can.
Well, I've worked many, manyjobs in my life, but I also have
been a CEO.
I've run businesses.
Speaker 4 (43:54):
I've been a governor.
I'm not questioning yourcredentials.
Speaker 3 (43:56):
I'm questioning your spending.
We are prioritizing where oursecurity needs are in this
country and we are hoping thatthis body will agree that
reconciliation is necessary toaddress the things that have
been neglected in this countryfor too long, that we have the
technology upgrades, themanpower upgrades that are
necessary.
So the 170 billion dollarrequest for the department of
(44:19):
homeland security is incrediblyimportant to make sure we have
the tools.
Speaker 4 (44:22):
I do have a couple of additional questions.
The fact is that you've notbeen given this funding.
Saying that it's going to comein reconciliation that has not
passed is not an acceptableanswer.
I did want to ask about FEMAand disaster relief.
This is really important.
A lot of disaster relief hasbeen politicized.
You've endorsed eliminatingFEMA outright.
(44:43):
We have seen an upheaval atFEMA that is going to put lives
in jeopardy.
One in five FEMA employees havebeen pushed out, taking this
administration's so-calledbuyout offer.
We are losing indispensablestaff just weeks away from fire
and hurricane season, and over$100 billion in disaster relief
(45:03):
and FEMA grants are still beingheld up.
Over $100 billion in disasterrelief and FEMA grants are still
being held up.
Dhs is making it a lot harderto qualify for relief, something
people in my home state ofWashington are experiencing
firsthand.
Multiple requests fromgovernors have been rejected in
recent weeks, including arequest from our state.
We haven't been given anyresponse about this, and I'm
(45:27):
watching this and I'm thinking.
Has President Trump directedyou to prioritize funding for
Republican states?
Absolutely not.
Have you directed your staff toprioritize funding to
Republican-led states overDemocratic states?
Absolutely not.
Speaker 3 (45:40):
Under this administration, there will not
be any politicization of supportrelief.
Speaker 4 (45:52):
FEMA assistance or grants given based on politics.
Every single person will bevery different than the Biden
administration.
Madam Secretary, there's aclear trend of Republican-led
states getting very fastresponses and funding.
Democrat-led states are beingforced to wait.
We have never treated FEMA as apartisan issue in this country.
Thank you, thank you.
Speaker 2 (46:07):
So I watched a lot of this.
One of the outlets that I giveto is Forbes and there is a full
hearing on Forbes breaking news.
As of five days ago.
Of this hearing, that was anhour and 41 minutes in their
(46:30):
runtime, so you can watch all ofthat and just kind of see
whatever the hell that that was.
Like I said in the beginning, Ithink Rose I think a lot of
(46:51):
people have come to believe cansee that ICE is a rogue agency
and it is, and so much thatthey've accidentally arrested
several American citizens.
(47:11):
The big time YouTube streamer,hassan Piker, was actually
interrogated recently at theairport over his criticism of
Israel, and that is where thistype of stuff is going.
(47:35):
Uh, kristi Noem went andtestified.
There's also the secretary whois responsible for a lot of the
cuts of staff that are happeningat the VA.
(47:57):
He went to Congress and I'vebeen watching that.
He had a very tough go at it.
I would say as well.
Kash Patel had to go.
Who's leading the FBI?
Same thing.
(48:19):
They do a lot, a lot gets done,but when senators get their
chance to go at these secretaryheads, that's kind of what all
of it is job, and you know,aren't they just upset that
(48:49):
you're just so great, and then,if you're not on the team,
you're gonna nail into them and,um, at the end of the day, um,
nothing is going tofundamentally change, but uh, it
is.
It is ridiculous.
But now, because the currentadministration has got past
(49:12):
their 100 days, the DemocraticParty is flexing.
The only muscle they reallyhave is to, when they have these
hearings, to speechify.
My only question is a goodspeech, is a good speech
Eventually to speechify?
My only question is a goodspeech, is a good speech
Eventually?
There's going to have to besome good policy that goes
(49:34):
behind all these speeches, andthat's just kind of where I have
to put it.
Thank you for tuning in.
I got something that I'm goingto open up with tomorrow which
makes this immigrationconversation a lot more
interesting about who immigratesand who they want to be, about
(50:04):
this push to legalize peoplecoming here from a very
interesting country.
We'll just say that.
See you on the next episode.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com