McConnell v Trump, Trump's Acquittal, Politicizing the Freeze, COVID Round Three
Long short with donald trump. Welcome to the politics guys. A place for bipartisan. Rational in civil debate on american politics and policy. I'm trae orndorff a political scientist at oklahoma christian university for all. Your food is out there. I'm unwrapping mcdonald's steak egg and cheese bagel who look at this steak and juice running down the side. A little bit on rapper. Here and then. A fluffy egg and rail cheese folded oversaw looking just so good grilled onions on about a bagel. Two thumbs up from madonna steak egg and cheese bagel for breakfast love it more nba participating mcdonald's a mid atlantic. It's me winter just a heads up. I'm gonna ice and snow all week. But if you're driving a honda you'll be fine in right now. Honda is offering its best ever. Apr honda suv lineup. Crv hov pilot passport and more with real time all wheel drive all the safety features included with honda sensing like a collision mitigation braking system and adaptive cruise control. Oh and don't forget to turn on your heated seats it's gonna get cold. Sorry your local honda dealer today. I'm joined by ken. Ken a professor of law at chase law school. Welcome to the show ken. it's great to be battery. Can i'm actually going to be selfish just for a couple of moments as we get the show going because some of our listeners actually might know this individual dr john maple and he died on thursday night this evening. After a protracted battle with cancer doctor maple. Actually the reason can that. I am came to oklahoma christian university. He was the former chair of the history and political science department here and he's a huge reason why i'm here and i'm doing what i am today. And it was really of deeply humbling today for me when i got takeover in two years ago and then today when i found out that he had a passed away and it was particularly ironic because it was the same day in the same location. Only i was sitting on the other side of the table that he was making some Very cogent arguments. Why should uproot my life again and Moved oklahoma and so for those of you. Who are listening who i know you come from around the area of oklahoma or connections with oh see i know that you too will sadly be missing dr john maple and john wish you were still sitting in this seat because then you'd be dealing with all the paperwork but no i mean that honest but king what i to move onto is our big story and i think one of the biggest stories that came out of this last week and i think we're gonna be talking about this for some time and that's the battle between the time i'm going to call it the republican civil war and it's taken the form this past week of a couple of statements one from mitch mcconnell on the senate floor turned into an op ed and then from a statement from trump about mccown on. I'm going to be honest. I actually have a dog in this fight. Not going to sugar coat. That but so while i disagree with mcconnell on a lot of things i think he is right here. So here's what was said. Here's one went down on the floor of the senate. Mcconnell argued that americans a beat and bloodied their own police and attacked congress because quote they had been with fed wild falsehoods by the most powerful man on earth. Because he was angry he lost an election in quote he would go on to say on the senate floor That trump quilt quote practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day and quote. He also go on and say the quote. The leader of the free world cannot spend weeks thundering that shadowy forces are stealing our country and then feigns surprise when people believe him and do reckless things in quote. So trump is kind of Then shot back and argued that the republican party is never going to be respected or strong again as long as quote unquote leaders. Like mcconnell are at the helm in trump's own words from his statement he said we know our america first. Agenda agenda is a winner. not mcconnell's beltway. first agenda or biden's american america last he go on to blast him meaning mcconnell for losing georgia for not being willing to issue two thousand dollars checks as which what he argues handed georgia to the the democrat and then in the line that has been making the rounds in the news he noted. Mitch is a sour. Excuse me mitch is a dour. Sullen and unsmiling political hack and republican senators are going to stay with him. They will not win again. That's a pretty. That's some pretty strong words. there can now. I'm going to turn it over to you. But i do want to say just one thing into this because again i have. I have a bit to fight here. And that's to say that if trump if he was listening. And i know he's not that my response to this little bit of statement he has here is trump. He's the embarrassment he's been the embarrassment to the conservative and libertarian alliance. That has always held together. The republican party and more than any other single person has shaken my fundamental belief of myself as a republican and so i think trump is one who created a tent that has included some of the most despicable groups including neo nazis and trying to bring them and successfully in many cases into the party. And i think that trump's going to go down without question in history along the likes of. Andrew jackson is the worst president in american history. So i've been pretty clear on where i stand but but Ken what do you think about this ongoing republican war and what it might mean for party realignment for politics in the upcoming twenty two thousand twenty two midterm elections. What do you think about this. I mean this is. This is some pretty intense public feuding. Yeah well i just got. I mean answered johnson. Enter jackson is still on the twenty dollar bill people. Some some people think he's a good president. Listen if you mass genocide people you're going to have to be in my book down just a little bit. So he's on the twenty dollar bill. I have you listen. He he is the single handed cause for how many countless other genocide i just. I can't get over that one. So i ain't him. Johnson is bad. I don't. I'm not trying to suggest that it was not. He's not my president. That's for sure. But i would have wreaked. Probably andrew johnson. James buchanan even a little lower. So i think trump. Yeah he's certainly going to be thought of that breath well in terms of civil war. You know it's a pretty one sided war because i think Mcconnell has absolutely no interest in even engaging in whatever war is going on at all. He's he has not responded. He's not going to respond respond. He doesn't need to respond. he doesn't i think he has said he's never gonna speak to trump again and he's probably never gonna speak of trump again. He's just. This nonsense has no impact on mcconnell at all even the idea that trump says he's going to primary mcconnell mcconnell just got re elected to a six-year term in twenty twenty if he wants to run again in twenty twenty six when he's about eighty five years old. You know trump's going to be in no position to do anything about primary was a matter of fact for a little bit inside baseball it this past week trump me mcconnell had actually signaled to kentucky lawmakers that he'd like to see the rules for house. Senators are replaced if they leave. Midterm changed so that governors would actually be picking from a list of three or a shorter list. That's given to them in large part because of course. The the current governor of kentucky is from the opposite party of Of mitch mcconnell which might signal something right there about one the lines of what you're talking about. Yeah i saw that. But actually i don't expect mcconnell to voluntarily resign retire before the end of his six year term. I think he I interpret that. I do probably agree. It means he's not gonna run again. But i i would interpret. That is just mcconnell is always you know dot his. I's crossing his t's worried about you know hanging hanging onto the senate seats that are there and i think he's actually pushing that advice on a lot of other states as well that if there are states where there's a gubernatorial appointments to Feel vacancies if there's a democrat governor. I think he's just generally being his usual strategic tactical self and saying we gotta make sure that democratic governor can't possibly choose a democratic senator to fill a vacancy so i don't think he's actually signaling that he's planning to leave earlier that he thinks rand is gonna leave early. But but yeah mcconnell. I mean he he is in. He's in a complete capri seat to totally ignore trump. I think to the extent that there's any civil war at all even though i think mcconnell's absurdly stronger than trump in every possible respect. The one thing is there could be a civil war amongst the electorate because it probably is true that trump trump voters are more numerous faction now in the republican party. Then the type of voters that we would have thought of previously as establishment republican voters. So that's something that could go in a lot of different directions going forward but I don't know that trump or trump is is well organized enough to to to to seriously mounted a serious attack on the on the on the party leadership and i don't actually know that there are any successors trump out there that you know even though people like holly and crews are trying to kind of position themselves that way. I think those kind of people have much appeal to trump's actual voters. So i don't i don't really know how to read all that. What do you think you're funny because we don't often disagree. I think we we actually have a shade of disagreement. But not in the way that i would have imagined we would And i think that you're underestimating. The i don't disagree. When you you call the trump supporters disorganized. And i know what you mean by that. In other words they don't have a systematic way of of pushing the party forward But i think you need to be careful and you were hinting at it when you said about the electorate but of course the individuals are going to be coming into the part of me. Look at green. Look at representative green. I don't think that in a pre trump universe you're going to have a green and office And i'm i'm a little bit more concerned that that more traditional republicans i e. That conservative libertarian alliance. That we've long had that i mentioned earlier. I think that really need is gonna have to fight to remain the bulwark of the republican party. I i the idea that. I think trump is going to go away. I think has been overplayed by many of us who are just tired of him. I get that. I i don't i don't completely disagree with that but i see maybe slightly differently. You're right of course that someone like a marjorie taylor. Green is only is only possible because of trump. and she's not going to be the only one of her type effect. She's already not the only one of her type. There's congressman congressman bogert from colorado. Is kind of of that type now. Others a few but i think in in in all but the tiniest handful of states if that if a candidate like that ran statewide they would not be able to win it so that that to the extent that trump is me and twenty fifteen thinking that trump couldn't win. Yeah trump had a sort of advantage. I suppose one thing that trump had going for him besides the fact that he was a tv celebrity with a fair amount of charisma and also that he got to run in a field that was absurdly crowded. So a lot of the other candidates were splitting. The vote on each other was that i think maybe this is built into what you just said that the republican party electorate. It's really been some time. Since they were all conservative by conventional measures of conservatism. And you might say when when they nominated. George w bush in two thousand he really probably was the most conservative candidate or very conservative candidate that the republicans could choose. But then if you look from two thousand eight two thousand twelve two thousand sixteen so you get mccain romney trump. You know they don't have a lot in common with each other but with those three have in common with each other. Is that every single. One of them was the least conservative candidate in the primary And so i think there is this you know there. Is this sense that the republican party is sort of in built by the conservative movement but the republican party electorate isn't really all that animated or motivated by the conservative movement and they're animated are motivated by different things. And you know trumpism. I think to the countries great detriment kind of latched on racism and native ism and to some extent sexism. As as you know things that could a big chunk of voters who really didn't care about Conservative movement issues. I think you need to include in that There there's a lot of economic voters in there. And i think one of the things that individuals like myself did not successfully see and i'll be straight about that. Is i think there were a lot of conservatives who i use me. Republicans not conservatives. I think there were a number of republican voters who saw Expanding international trade as being an economic harm and so. I don't disagree what you're saying about kind of that native ism i think part of it is also not just tied up in terms of culture but i think there's some underlying economic unease there in in a global economy in in recognizing advantages of countries trading. And i think that's a big portion of what made trump successful matter of fact on the left i think a large part of what makes bernie sanders successful. I see a lot of similarities between the two at least on that one particular item. I wonder about it. You certainly could be right about that. And i'm just really going with a gut feeling here. More than anything could refute. What you just said. But i i look at that more like the motivations. You know it's true that people who oppose free trade might support trump or they might support sanders but my my gut instinct and my kind of interactions with people in that camp is that of people who support who oppose free trade. If you're gonna try to figure out which of them are going to be the ones that support trump in which be ones that support sanders. It really feels to me like the ones who support trump. they start from the position of native ism. So that what they don't like about free. Trade really has very little to do with economics. it's only just that they. They don't like the interaction with foreigners. They don't will agree with you there. I think what what distinguishes is the two things get tied together right ideas of economics and culture at merge into into almost a singular ideological position. So i don't it's overlap. More than single illogical. Do you think the sanders people who are against free trade issues that they think it weakened the labor unions in the united states. You know so. It's kind of it's not. They're not really coming at it. From an ideology of native ism. In fact i think a lot of them would be fine with free trade if it could be accompanied by an international labor movement. You know so so that it didn't weaken union. I think that the impact on on unionized labor organized labor is the primary concern for the sanders voters. And i think just the idea that we're actually involved with foreigners seems it seems to me more kind of atavistic rather than economic. You know y that's an issue for the for the for the trump voters. Well you know. I want some one of the other things that came out of this civil war you know. This has been something that i have been kind of gelling journaling about a little bit. But i really wasn't quite sure how to put it into words until i think this week and this is a question for you can because i think it it really has to be answered from the democrats and that is i think that democrats more so than. They're showing need to be worried about this Republican civil war. And and here's why. And this is what. I've been having a time trying to come to thinking about this. Is you kind of go back in history and you think to the era of good feelings the last time we really had one dominant political party and i could see in the short term. Maybe something like that. Being the case in the wake of trump where republicans are not able to to put forward effective candidates in part because were divided among ourselves. And but here's where it kind of incomes for you can. And i worry a little bit about this because we really need robust political discourse one of the the underlying principles of this show and one of the things. I've kind of noticed we've moved forward. Maybe just a touch. And i'm curious about your take is that i feared the a lot of democrats are a lot of leftists who i think have rightly assailed trumpism. And i've been on board with them for that might be falling into a discourse now. We're there could be no loyal opposition in other words you're rightfully attacking tr an individual and a system of values that is an ethical to republican government. But then at some point wh how do democrats work to ensure that. There's kind of a robust political party system. We're they can have positive discourse and disagree with the party while at the same time kind of Being able to back away from the very successful language and the rifle language of a sailing individuals like trump. And i'm thinking about this in terms. Most recently as i've seen some of the tweets coming from democratic congress persons in the past week. And that's what gelled it for me here for for you. What do you think about that. So kind of what should what do democrats need to think about the republican civil war and that kind of language shift if we can move away from a trump yet. Well i guess. I agree with part of your diagnosis. But maybe not quite with prescription. So okay yes so. I think it if there's a lot of instability in the republican party and if trump is groups perhaps sue aligned with the kind of militias that we've seen including i think some of the militia groups that attack the capital and that becomes kind of a rough part of the republican party or just spins off into a different party or or takes over the republican party. I think the those kinds of groups getting the control of one of our great political parties definitely does pose a danger to the stability of the country So i certainly agree with that on the other hand. If you can hypothesize you know that differently and i think this was implicit in your question. You know maybe what happens. Isn't it Violent militias takeover the republican party. But maybe what happens is just. The republican party can't hold together as viable party and so democrats for a while become so dominant that we don't have a functioning two party system Well actually that wouldn't bother me. And i think that sort of what happens when you say. The words just having a democratic party. A single party system wouldn't bother you. I'm a little of that. Would not bother me on this. Show how you think that a A political systems are best. Done when you can have. I was even trying to use your words as i was asking. You oftentimes talked about the loyal opposition. Surprised about that. I do believe that. But i think it's not a question of best. It's a question of second best right now right. So the the best of all would be a well-functioning two party system. But i'll stand by that. I've said it before. I'll say it again. I know that's where your question was coming. But i think we're in a world of second best right now and if the question is you know we have a two party system right now where in fact you know. The senate's divided fifty fifty. The house is closely divided. But i see that you know under current political circumstances. That's not so good because you have You know it doesn't give you the chance of achieving. Any kind of bipartisan accomplishments. If you've got such extreme polarization not only among the elected officials actually being demanded by their constituents the the the opposition party sees. It's only goal as to you know being to make the majority party failure and therefore to not to try to make deals with them about anything not to find points of mutual agreement or mutual interest but just to sabotage to the maximum extent. Possible the any kind of achievements. That can be good for the country. I that's the position we're actually in right now. And so i think i think from that it would actually move the country forward to eliminate that kind of dysfunction by having a period where one party was more dominant. And i i do think if you look at the nineteen thirties and into the early nineteen forties. Where you know. The country really wasn't able to deal with the great depression properly until you had basically you know significant one party rule and proudly couldn't have dealt with world war properly if we didn't have a significant one party rule and still at the end of world war two when when those enormous crises past and when the republican party had been so decimated for a decade that it it really had to rebuild. We benefited from you. Know pretty pretty good. Rebirth of the republican party. At that point in time. I think You know being in better shape than it's been in many other points in time after having suffered a decade of of not being part of our politics so i think that kind of cleansing of the situation where the parties can completely gridlock each other and make the government dysfunctional through a period of one party rule. I think would be okay. And i think that that would not be sustainable for any longer than it was in the decade from nineteen thirty four to nineteen forty four year Three or four presidential cycles effectively. Yeah i'd say probably three and you know we. Typically i mean we had eisenhower elected. Just you know only within five or six years. After roosevelt died so roosevelt was getting elected. By what seventy seventy five percent of the vote. The congress was seventy seventy five percent democratic Say he probably is a little bit of a unique case. I'm not sure if i would. I would use that as an example there because in large part both historically both political parties would have been happy to have eisenhower. Run for them. He just ended up opting for the republicans for a couple of maybe not not exactly ideological reasons. Let's just be brief. No no no. But i think that's actually part of my point it's only because the republicans have been so decimated for a decade that they needed to think about. How could they start. Appealing to voters again. And i think that made them open to. Somebody like eisenhower because he could win elections whereas if they had never been decimated they would have stuck with much more of the herbert hoover types. They wouldn't have been opened to a centrist eisenhower. Social media. So i think it was. They're very You know their political misfortunes. That made them go back to the drawing board and try to figure out how to be a party that could actually be attractive to voters in the center and that that the republicans benefited from the complete discrediting of hooverism That kind of created an opening for you know what happened there ideology to kind of just Die out and for them to come back as a renewed party that had a great deal to contribute to the country. That could only happen. The icenhower can only become their nominee. Because i think of abject defeat that they had suffered from the hoover generation. I think i think we probably do have a little bit of disagreement there before we move forward in that that i agree that you don't want to have a a system where the opposition is. A is a breakdown right. As you kind of put it that rump. Potentially the of the republican party. I think though i i kind of i have maybe a more i appreciate that you call it the second best position when you talk about the one. The one party domination Are having a one party system. Excuse me but i. I think where i might disagree. A little bit is i. Don't think that that was where you see. The years of fdr is probably being a better thing. While i i'm not as negative on. Fdr is some. I don't think. I think that we were saved from some of the more unfortunate. Fdr pushes say the court packing for example because they're still was in fact an actual Loyal opposition from a number of different branches functioning properly a separation of powers. And so i would be hesitant to quite go as far as you are down that path of calling the second best option but i recognize this shade of difference but we need to move on to our next topic. But before we do that. We're going to take a short break with a sponsor and when we come back we're going to be taking a look at trump's acquittal and we're going to focus on some of the upcoming cases that he might still face right after this short break he mid atlantic. It's me winter just a heads up. I'm gonna ice and snow all week but if you're driving a honda you'll be fine in right now. Honda is its best ever. Apr on the entire honda suv lineup. Crv hov pilot passport and more with real time all wheel drive and all the safety features included with honda sensing like collision mitigation braking system and adaptive cruise control. Oh and don't forget to turn on your heated seats. it's gonna get cold. Sorry the your local honda dealer today for all. Your food is out there on unwrap in a mcdonald's steak egg and cheese bagel. Who look at this steak and the juice running down the side. Get a little bit on rapper. Here and then. A fluffy egg and rail cheese oversaw looking just so good Grilled unabomber bego. Two thumbs off madonna steak. Eggen she's bagel for breakfast. Love it more baba participating. Mcdonald's will can we wanted shat a little bit about trump's acquittal and i know that last week We actually had a new individual and joining us on the politics. Guys in both of us had listened in on that when a libyan joined mike and j But one of the things that we didn't get a chance to talk about in the last show because they were doing it on. A saturday was really kind of pushing a little bit deeper into the question of well. What might trump now face on the legal side right so as we mentioned earlier. Mcconnell effectively made the argument earlier this week after the vote again after they had done the show saying. Look this is a constitutional issue. I don't begrudge anybody who disagrees or comes on the other side but you can't impeach A former president and that was something that we had talked about on the show. The two of us. We obviously came to a slightly different conclusion on that then then mcconnell but he will go on to effectively say. I think that he is more responsible or or at the more negative way of looking at saying well you know. He kicked it to the courts to have to actually deal with it now. You might see that as a bad thing or good thing. We'll put that aside for just a minute but there are still six really big cases being laid out now mike last week he. He didn't seem to be he. Didn't seem to think there was much hope here. But i at least list the six and kind of get your take on. What might trump's future be post acquittal. Here one we've got the ongoing hush money allegations lawsuit The second big set of cases the tax and bank fraud investigation. That's going on the third one. Is we have a big real estate fraud investigation. That's going on. We have the emoluments clause which is the fourth. We've of course got the sexual misconduct. Lawsuits is actually a body of law. Suits you might think of as being one r v and then of course one of the other. Big ones is the mary trump lawsuit. That's ongoing with trump so You know mitch. Mcconnell effectively says look this is the. This is the way that he's going to be held responsible. Of course now. I mean maybe the seventh could even be here any of the fallou From what happens from the d. c. incident in the wake of his words. So what do you think is the fuming. Your lawyer trump comes to your office and he plunked down a million dollars and he says they what's going on. You know what when you say that well first thing is he better because i'm not going to represent him unless he pays an advanced seems to be the cases that he doesn't always pay which i mean being correct me if i'm wrong. I have worked around a lot of attorneys generally. It's a little bit harder when you haven't paid your bill to get another attorney in every which way trump seems to turn. There always seems to be some attorneys like yeah. I'll take his case up. What about me. i've got a better case. Take me up. I i cannot pay you. He offered to pay review. Giuliani twenty thousand dollars a day to represent them in these cases after the election which is a very high might be one of the highest fees in the country and then he stiff on the whole thing payment. Here we go can. Here's what i'll do. I promise you now that if you will take up all the rest of the my lawsuits for my life. I will pay you as much money as per day. As long as you won't collect i think trump is. He's i think he'll be able to escape through some of these lawsuits. But i think he's going to be in big trouble in some of them he'll probably end up trying to settle. He'll probably end up trying to settle several of them because he won't want to go to trial and and i also think there's going to be a lot more. In fact you mentioned at the end there could be some civil liability arising out of the january sixth insurrection. I'm quite sure that there will be a lot of cases. I think the first one of those was already filed by representative bennie thompson of mississippi. He filed a civil lawsuit against trump and giuliani for causing the the insurrection by the violent mob. That broke into the so. She brought him up. Can i just ask. I had a question. I was going to ask on his particular front. Do you think he's gonna actually end up having standing for that suit. Yeah i think he will. I mean there's i think the question about whether he would would stem from a concept called legislative standing which says that Generally if a legislator for instance votes against a bill argues in congress that the bill is unconstitutional. And then the bill passes anyhow and then the legislator wants to go to court and say s the court to strike down this law that on the ground that it's unconstitutional. Typically in those kind of situations the courts will say well. The legislator doesn't have standing to do that only somebody who's affected by the law but in this case he's not suing in his capacity as legislator he's suing in his capacity as a person who was in fact violently attacked right. So so it's not. It's not it's not that he's saying my vote somehow was diluted by something. Trump did There'd be standing issues about that but no he's saying. I had to cower in my office and i could have been killed by this mavi sent in there. That's that's a direct particularized injury. In fact so. I don't i don't think he should have any problem. Establishing standing now go now see. I took him down that rabbit hole summit and bring it back to the original kind of the question and you were already mentioning there that you thought that trump could be in trouble for some of these and obviously try to settle out of court some of these although that might be harder and this and this particular stage of his these trials and what he's done in the past. Where do you think he might have the biggest issues so obviously one of them as you've already mentioned is here the That kind of the insurrection activity. What about these other six. Yes we'll just before we leave. The instruction is one more thing to say about that. Is you had some doubts. And i think a lot of judges might share some of those doubts. About why congressman thompson is the proper plaintiff here. But don't forget there's there's there were some officers killed right there that day. That's who i thought would probably have the biggest thing is. I assumed that we would see some lawsuits stemming from their death that that's where thought we'd have. Yeah we have those haven't been filed yet but Yeah they will be filed and not only a few killed in a few who committed suicide shortly after. But also i think more than one hundred capitol. Police officers were injured that day. You know every one of them's got a lawsuit. So i i mean i'm sure there's some of them who won't file but my guess is you're going to see upwards of fifty separate lawsuits filed by people who actually sustained injuries or death as a result of that instruction and so. That's that's a lot of money that's at stake there And so yeah. I think that that that's probably going to be his biggest single source of civil liability. And i would not rule out a criminal liability from that. Either i mean. I think one reason that we're not hearing much about that. right now. is the joe biden and kamala harris are going to keep themselves a million miles out of those kind of discussions. They're not gonna make any decisions about whether to prosecute trump for the events of january. Sixth or probably for anything you know. I think they're gonna leave that in the hands of the law enforcement but but right now there may be that the fbi and career prosecutors may already be doing investigations into trump's role in all that but they're properly keeping that confidential as the justice department investigating trump. Trump always would make a big point of you know. Well we're we're having the durham investigation of the investigators. But that's not really the way. The justice department normally operates normally if something's at the stage of being investigated They're not supposed to cast aspersions on people who are being investigated by letting it known publicly that they're doing investigation. And and i think in the end there's going to be career. Investigators career officials finding facts making confidential reports about whether there's probable cause to bring criminal charges and then the people on the front lines who are going to have to decide whether to move ahead with that or not are mostly going to be the attorneys for the particular districts and primarily the us attorney for the district of columbia. And not only. Isn't there one right now But the biden hasn't even nominated someone to be. Us attorney for the district of columbia. Because i think actually he's going to want confer with garland about that after garland's confirmed and he hasn't been confirmed yet either so i think that's a really important point. Is i think that we forget that. All of the apparatus of the executive office is nearly in place yet and so we were having a number of these conversations. I think i think for a lot of people. There's always a lot of emotion. There's a lot of the desire for things to happen. Really rapidly but in. It's not unusual for it to take time to get all these positions filled and we're not in normal times anyway because we were we were already dealing with the the trial itself. Which of course delayed some of this. And i'm not saying that's a wrong. That's just a function of what's happening. I do think there was also some obstruction. When when the senate couldn't get reorganized after the election And lindsey graham was still running judiciary committee until the friday before the impeachment trial. That made it harder for garland to get confirmation. Hearing because traditionally the attorney general would be one of those positions where there should be a confirmation hearing you know. Ideally even before inauguration day so that they could vote on or on inauguration day or the next day to confirm attorney general. But be that as it. May i think what we're only at the stage now where career law enforcement officials would be quietly investigating and would never be in a position to do anything other than present investigative findings to the responsible a superior officials who could make the decision whether to proceed or not and those and those officials aren't even on the job yet so so. I think it's not surprising. We're not hearing anything about the prosecutors relating from january six. But i think i think it's likely to happen but it's likely to take a little while before things start moving forward on that and then now we could go to some of the other night slowed you down that advocates. I mean there's always. I think that's part of the great thing about having these kinds of conversations that we both ended up focusing on things that might be a little bit different so again the the six ongoing in other words the ones that were already happening that package the hush money we have the tax and bank fraud investigation. The real estate fraud investigation moments cases. Matter of fact that one particularly as is is worth looking at because the supreme court has been unusual in this. I had a question this is. I don't even know. I was curious about this on your case can. Has there ever been a time. Because on this site cases we've had the longest no response from the supreme court over an emergency injunction in history. But i was you know you always wanna be careful saying. It's never happened that long because somebody always comes out and says well in one thousand nine twenty one Or whatever to the best of my ability to get it. That's been the longest it's been do you think. For example the fact that we're not hearing from the supreme court on that that maybe just just roberts is trying to kind of. He seems to often try to bring the court together. And be that moderating voice so that there's kind of a of a singular voice moving forward. He did that. In the and the affordable healthcare act for example seemingly kind of shifting his vote so that he could Shift the opinion itself and right. Do you see any of that happening here that the court might not be willing to hear. These cases is that the moments caused an example of well. If they really wanted to take some of this on they have already issued the stay at this point in meeting and this is this is one of the longest. Yeah i've seen it. You're right you're right. I mean this supreme court has been i i i get more than one way of trying to analyze. Why it's been like this. But the supreme court has run a lot of interference that has rebounded to the benefit of trump. they've led him delay proceedings for a very long time. Not only not only in the emoluments clause case but you know one of the other ones that. I'm just astounded by along. Those lines is from the first impeachment of trump more than a year ago The the the house subpoenaed trump's. Then white house counsel don mcgann and and the question of whether don mcgann can be made to testify is one that the court has just simply not decided you know and that's where the first impeachment that's still wasn't even decided by the second impeachment and that and that is actually one of the reasons. I understand that the house managers after winning the vote in the second impeachment to allow them to call. Witnesses made an agreement not to call any witnesses because they they were afraid. The same thing would happen that the the witnesses refused to come and the supreme court would run interference by refusing to issue a ruling on that. So i think that kind of interference that the court has been running to just run out clocks in ways that favored trump. He's getting away with something. Using is running out is running out the clock because wants to favor trump. Or do you think it's running out the clock and this has been my kind of operating hypothesis because it doesn't a half to involve itself in a political question even remotely and thereby Lose some of its. It's reserved status You know there is a long standing history of the court attempting now of course as you move. Recently the court has eased up on this. Oh goodness i'm trying to think of what is the call called the political question doctrine. The idea that there's certain disputes between the political branches. That the court should just absent itself from. Yeah i mean. I think there's the problem is i think there's a mixture of motives on the current court rate so i think that Probably especially now that Judge justice barrett as on the court the the center of gravity on the court might be that if they were going to rule on these cases they would rule in favor of trump And so i think because of that. And i do think that's really become cemented by justice barrett's ascension to the core. I think that means that the democrats won't on the court don't kick and scream too hard. If chief justice roberts does these delaying tactics. And i think the delaying tactics from roberts's standpoint probably are as you say to try to preserve the legitimacy of the court in the eyes of the whole country and you're not sitting a precedent so by saying nothing. You don't set a precedent. We don't know in common law system. If you set the precedent now you have this long standing practice. You have to undo at some point and that's always that rarely happens. Yeah i'd actually rather see them set precedents because i think if they're really going to have a majority vote and rule in favor of trump in these cases because he's trump and their and their partisans which is what i believe is where the actual majority of the court is and i think that's those rulings that roberts is trying to forestall. It's better that they do it both so that Because i don't think they deserve the respect of of all americans if they're partisan and also because i think the president that they would set with those rulings could also then redound to the benefit of leader democratic presidents whereas if they're always just running running out the clock because it's trump and they want to help and then they do the opposite when there's a leader democratic president so so i really appreciate it but i think i think the dem's probably do think it's sometimes better to let republicans run out the clock than to actually make terrible rulings and and i think roberts thinks it's better to run out the clock then then to make divisive rulings and so and so i think that's you know i think there's a kind of overlap of motives but they really have not a lot of those kinds of cases about presidential power. They've made a big point of not deciding while trump was president and they have not invoked the political question doctrine. Right so one thing. The court could have done but didn't do is could have actually issued a ruling saying This is a subject that the court lacks jurisdiction to rule on. And therefore we're not going to rule on it the that's that's how it's been done in past political question doctrine cases but the court has never done that in any of these cases. They've just taken the cases they've exercised jurisdiction over them and then they just have not decided them. It's a little bit different. And i think it's bad and i wish they would. I actually think they're gonna let them run out the clock completely in the emoluments clause case and that the final the final boom in that case when the final boom drops. It's going to be that the case is now because he's not the president anymore. I don't necessarily disagree with that. Now i just for my own edification though. I'm going to have to say the thing that i could not think of when i was when you were talking. We were talking with the political political question. Doctrine was luther. V board dean. You're in my head. I couldn't get it out for the life of service is the oldest of the political question. Is this the first year. The first i had. I was trying to get that and it was somewhere in the vaults of my mind the the listeners to know what that case is this goes back to the eighteen forties forty nine. Yeah so there was actually a revolution within the state of rhode island and there was there was a military coup when y. I don't know why here this is actually a fascinating point of history. So unlike all the other states rhode island had never created its own constitution and instead was still operating off of the royal charter and so citizens were demanding. The legislature either create a state constitution or at least the minimum. Get rid of the voting. The of land is voting requirement and the legislature. Wouldn't do either so go ahead. That's actually what leads to kind of happening. Is that both both factions that claim to be the legitimate government in rhode island claim claim that they hold their own separate elections and they claim to have won the elections. So there's two different slates of congress members that show up claiming to represent a rhode island. And so the governor declares martial law to try to get the other ones to not show up. Yeah and so. The supreme court is asked to resolve this dispute and with the supreme court says. Well it's actually. Congress gets to resolve this dispute because in the the qualifications clause of article one the each house of congress gets to judge the qualifications of its own members and so when people show up claiming to be members of hold the same seat in congress. The congress has to decide which one to recognize because the constitution assigns that to congress which is one of the political branches the white house being the other political branch. That means that the courts can't make that judgment and so so we sometimes called at the political question doctrine now that there's certain judgements that have to be made in trial like settings where we might normally think. This is the kind of case or controversy. That a court could you to kate. But if the constitution actually assigns the the resolution of those those disputes to one of the two political branches legislative rancher the executive branch then that means that the judicial branch has to stay out. So sometimes that's been used that's the basis of why impeachment proceedings for instance are not judicially. Reviewable the senate has the power to try impeachments and that means that when there were questions like the one that just came up about whether someone who is no longer in office can be tried in impeachment trial. The answer would be. The court has to stay out of that. That's up to the senate to decide. And that's why the senate took a vote on that and that was not reviewable in in court. So that is a doctrine. I don't believe it properly should apply to malaya its claws because there's no the constitution doesn't say which other branch should decide whether there's been a violation of the emoluments clause. So i think the ordinary presumption that courts can decide that should apply and the court didn't say that it applies they actually took jurisdiction over the case and then just just sat on it and so i think they've done that in several other contexts where they probably should have made a ruling about whether trump had broken the lar- exceeded his authority. And but i think they're gonna let them run out the clock on the On the emoluments case. I think they tried hard to let them. Run out the clock on the new york district attorney subpoenas and it would've would've worked if he'd been reelected because they kept even while they didn't say he was exempt from subpoenas in state criminal proceedings. They kept sending it back with weird instructions like the state court has to give you more consideration than they did. Last time to the fact that this guy is the sitting president and that kind of thing and i think they would have just kept bouncing it back and forth like that for as long as trump was in office and soon the statute of limitations would've run out but because he didn't get reelected he wasn't able to get away with running out the new york state statute of limitations while he was still in office. Well you know we could talk about that forever clearly. Because we've got. We've got two more stories for listeners. And when we come back from this short breaks short break in the comeback. And we're actually going to be talking about. Maybe one of the biggest weather events that has happened in the south in modern history. At least and that's the cold snap and specifically we're gonna be talking about the politicization of the cold snap as it dipped into texas. If you're gonna wait with this just for a moment for our break and then went back to talk about texas and the politicisation of the cold snap can has been a lot of conversation This week about the well. The deeply frigid temperatures which dipped into the western states. As a matter of fact. I'm part of this. So i've been experiencing it. There was an unprecedented amount of snow and cold. Even here in the oklahoma city area. Where i live Here it oklahoma city specifically we broke a forty year record. Last time it was the highs. Were were below freezing for this. Long was the year. I was born in one thousand eighty three And so likewise though we also beat snow totals in this case. It wasn't just a forty year old whether event instead we actually for all of recorded history. There has never been as much no in oklahoma city as there was over the past few days but that apparently has not held a candle to what's happening in texas and and i wanna turn to texas because texas power outage result of cold. Temperatures has become a really big political issue this week. texas governor. Abbot blamed the green new deal and the increasingly high reliance on renewables. On sean hannity's fox news show. He said quote it just shows that fossil fuel is necessary for the state of texas to make sure we will be able to heat our homes and the wintertime's and cool our homes in the summertimes in quote later in the week on wall street journal editorial called for reliance on coal of all things instead of either natural gas or renewables because of its reliability and pointed to the disaster unfolding texas on the left. Of course they blamed a lack of planning and importantly a set of officials have who have taken themselves off the national power grid and into the mix of ted cruz was headed to mexico before he turned around after his daughter. Tricked him into going. I suppose afc sean on twitter. That governor abbot needed to get off tv and read a book on the state's energy supply. So this is one of those items can where. I thought that we as the politics guys could really bring some rationale to the debate and so on twitter and on the news. I have seen just numbers have abounded about renewables and naturals. Actually i have i yes listeners. I went out and i researched this one so a couple of things just so that she can all be on the same page one is that yes texas does. In fact have its own power grid and it's not completely connected to the rest of the nation's power grid that grid is called urquhot e. r. c. ot and it's run by the company of the same name the electric reliability council of texas now. It doesn't actually technically cover all of texas but it covers most of texas it doesn't include some locations like the panhandle now further. It's worth noting that the reason that this all happens is that back in nineteen eighty two. When the very first power grid went. On by thomas edison there were lots of smaller companies. All around the country and then during world war one they got more connected they got even more interconnected during world war two and it's during world war two that several texas companies joined together into the precursor of arcot now and this is where things can get very texan is the best way i can put this. The texans wanted to keep their system out of federal control and so for anybody who wants a little bit more detail on this. Because you can't go into all the details and podcasts. I highly recommend. There's actually an article in the journal of natural resources and environment. By richard cuddly who was a member of the seventh circuit court of appeals. He was a texan and he kind of outlines. This but what happens in a short version is that texas went through some deep measures even through the seventies to keep their power structure limited. And so eventually. There's a truce between congress and texas little allow taxes to continue to have its own level of independence and so even today twenty twenty one or remains beyond the jurisdiction of the federal regulatory commission and therefore still largely independent of links to other power grids. And that's really unusual. The other thing is there's been all these numbers thrown around. And so i've looked this up to according to the independent statistics and analysis section of the us energy information administration when you look at electricity consumption so in other words the stuff that's actually getting out to people to use not for other kinds of purposes and that's what i think is key to this to be here you can actually list all of the thousands of megawatts the production that texas has natural gas accounts for fifteen thousand four hundred twenty five megawatts again in thousands non hydro electric. New ables are the next largest just shy of nine eight thousand nine hundred and thirteen coal accounts for ten six thousand five hundred and thirty nine nuclear three thousand four hundred hydra hydro electric one hundred and thirty four and petroleum ademir four. So if i've done my math right. And i have that means that. When you're talking about electric's renewables account for about twenty five point. Nine percent of the electric power grid in texas and natural gas accounts for about forty four point eighty two percent. So i've seen a lot of other outlets get different numbers. The best i can tell. Is that these numbers come. Because they're looking at the pure amount of power coming out as opposed to the power. That's going for grid consumption meaning for consumers so along the outlets in the left i think are really under reporting some of the most meaningful numbers and on the right. There's some real outright ront line going on including that wind turbines of frozen even though of course winner is them and they happened in far northern places and things congressperson. Bogart's you were talking about her earlier. Can that you have to use planes to ice win. Which was actually just a fake. A bit of a helicopter picture. They had nothing to do with that. So here's my question can in short texas. It seems like it froze. Because texas doesn't rely on national standards natural gas outlets roth but the percentage of newell's is higher and it to froze but in long law large reason because texans didn't think this was ever going to happen and so they just hadn't winterized things but it hasn't stopped both sides from taking a shot at the other. What do you think about how quickly the cold snap in texas. The power outages have turned into some localization. And do you think there's any kind of long term meaningful statement to be made here. I've been trying to think about this. You know judge. Justice louis brandeis said one hundred years ago that that one of the great benefits of our system of federalism in the united states is that the states can serve as laboratories of experimentation. And so you know. I guess the way he would look at this and maybe we would look at this somewhat. This way is that you know it's not. It was nice of texas to do this. This radical experiment in deregulation. So that those of us in the other forty nine states could see how it works out before deciding whether whether other states should proceed to do something like this and thinking about his his saying. Who but i thought about a different way because on the one hand we have california which has gone a very different direction as texas has had its own set of problems and then texas which thought they hate men. Aren't we happy that we're not california. But their fix for. It didn't really fix it either to it doesn't seem like either major model has worked very out in. Yeah well. I don't. I don't know because i know california issues with high high prices and i don't know if that was also an issue with fire induction issues as well rolling blackouts and that was what i was thinking about more specifically. That's a good point. That's a good point. Yeah well texas. I mean as you mentioned earlier. The whole state didn't take itself off the national grid. Most of the state did but el paso which has been having exactly the same weather as the rest of texas has not had any any power outages. And it's because they power comes down through albuquerque and can come from farther away than that. If local plants fail the generate and it does seem there some some benefits from staying on the national grid. If you're your own plans start to fail. You get power from other locations locations. Yeah wish el paso has been doing just fine while it's been just as cold there as in other parts of texas the other the numbers i actually was looking at the numbers on the cut on their own webpage the electric reliability council of texas. And the numbers. I'm looking at quite close to what you said. But maybe not exactly. And what i've seen here. Is that these numbers are very close to you. Said but they have it listed as twenty two point. Eight percent wind and forty five point five percent natural gas so okay so in the in the case for the the breakdown. The what's going to make it just a little bit. Different is is that i had put together everything. That was a non hydro renewable. There's actually a few more when you include that over there. Were in the same. Yes we're talking about the kind of things right so almost almost all that category would be wind and then just a little bit of it would be solar and stuff like that so but his surprisingly some of that in texas. I have learned so some solar well. I guess the thing about wind is in the possession of this my understanding of this and you can correct me if you if you know more than me. Is that although although texas's pretty heavily into wind actually twenty two point eight percent is both. I think a lot compared to what you'd see in other states it is way high. Yes and in fact. It's more than you see for coal being only about eighteen percent and win being second again only to natural gas in texas but yet i don't think any fat is because of environmentalism in texas. I think the reason you see so much. Use of wind in texas is because they have a lot of wind in texas and they have a lot of space for windmills in texas and so these power companies you know find it to be economic and in their own self interest to put up windmills. And i think any regulators have have come down them and told them to put down windmills. I think it's a there's probably less regulation pushing that kind of thing in texas than just about anyplace else in the country. And i don't know if you knew anything different than that and this is glenn that she pushed us in that direction. Because that's where i kind of wanted to take next. In some ways this seems like an unforced error for a lot of texas so for example. One of the and this is i think just emblematic of a larger thing that we see coming from Governor abbott because if you look at what he says locally and what he says on the sean hannity show their different messages. But did you see the message from tim boyd. The mayor of colorado city texas. It kind of went viral this past week. Texas texans would rather have no power than have a federal regulation. Yeah as a matter of fact this is the way that he put he said quote. Let me hurt some feelings. While i have a minute. No one knows you well. I'm cleaning up his language. Because i can't speak in his english. No one knows you are but he means or your family anything nor is it. Local governments responsibility to support you during trying times like this sink or swim. It's your choice. The city the country along with power providers or other services owes you nothing. I'm sick and tired of people looking for a dmz handout. If you don't have electricity you step up and come up with a game plan to keep your family warm and safe if you've new wandered deal without and think outside of the box to supply survive and supply water to your family if you're sitting at home in the cold because you have no power sitting there waiting for someone to come rescue you because you're you're lazy is a direct result of your raising. Only the strong survive and the week will perish. Why was on could continue to take on his rant. But i don't mean. I am a libertarian. Here right i don't even i mean he's not like boys not some anarchist. Who's arguing for the for the end. He's not an anarchist capitalist. What's going on here. I cannot figure out what everybody has been a bizarre response. And i don't quite have a good answer. You know you're asking here. Why is this the attack point. I get why you can have some attack points. I get the wall street journal. But i don't understand. A lot of the texan response. It baffles me. That's that's why. I started with justice brandeis in the laboratory of experimentation right. I mean if texans think that way you know if they think well we'd rather were so committed to to deregulation or two on regulation of of businesses that we were perfectly willing to Run the risk that our businesses can't Supply essential services because it's better to let power companies have bad days where they can't provide power than to actually regulate them to make sure that they can provide power. I'd say it's instructive for texas to experiment like that country you keep putting in that framework and this on this. I'm going to push back a little bit. It's not even so much about regulation in that. Okay you you made some choices that we're probably undoubtedly a little bit cheaper. I think a lot of people make those. And i get that. Who would have who i mean. Who would have planned for the freeze and the snow on the beaches of the gulf of mexico. And i don't think that's be true. They they did they had. I mean when when prisoner bottle is still president. The in twenty eleven. You couldn't predict. But i don't think anybody's going to put the money into that. That's what i'm saying. well recognized. They need to save for retirement. But it doesn't mean anybody does no but these are closely regulated industries in most states and a regulator in any normal state would order them to do that because they shouldn't be able to make choices here that are only purely in the power companies own self interest the the regulator could force them to do some things that will protect the public interest and like. Yeah yeah and i guess in texas. They're saying they don't wanna do that so fine. But i'm glad i live in a state where it gets cold all the time and the regulator will actually say. Yeah the regulator will say to the power company you have to insulate those gas lines so that the gas doesn't freeze in the line and you know that's just a cost of doing business in the state if you're running a power company and that's how it is in almost every state so texas is really taking a unique regulatory experiment here and i was gonna say in two thousand eleven. They had this kind of weather in texas. I mean this is a little bit worse this time but they had enough weather had enough cold weather in twenty eleven that they had All power. The gas lines froze. The power went out for about twenty four to thirty six hours. A lot of places in the state and the federal energy regulatory commission. When it was still obama's federal energy regulatory commission they told the texas regulators look. We don't have authority over you. But they sent him a plan and they said you should tell the power companies in texas that they have to put some insulation around the gas lines. Because those gas lines are gonna freeze again. The next time it gets this cold and and then you're not going to be able to guest to the generating plants. I mean it's not like they weren't told that it's just that they decided that they didn't care and they weren't going to regulate their power companies won't mean yes. I disagree on that point now. Yeah so i. I say good you know. Let them let them show. The rest of the country would like to have that kind of regulatory philosophy. Okay so now can we are man. We have gone long in this. We've got one other really big item that we need to take care of and this one is near and dear to you heart. It's kovin relief. Bill part three right. I mean we gotta talk about this and as a matter of fact On this past this friday house democrats their one point nine trillion dollar bills full tax was made available for covid. Relief includes a number of items. And it's not a big surprise for anybody who actually wants to read through it The the only kind of moderate surprise might be that the that the house democrats are still sticking by the fifteen dollars an hour. Minimum wage includes the fourteen hundred dollar direct checks for americans making less than seventy five thousand dollars a year an extension of unemployment benefits. I have yet to be able to see if they've included the idea of extending the child tax credit that was not readily apparent to me on my brief read through so what i do want to focus on. Though is this is this is huge. This is a one point nine trillion and this is in addition to the already three point five trillion. Spit on covid. Relief is we talked about earlier on the show. This is actually something weirdly that former president trump wanted. He wanted to have another relief. Bill but specifically wanted higher direct payouts. As a matter of fact he blamed mitch mcconnell for not getting that done so if we add these bills together if this in some form one point nine trillion goes forward about at the size that it is that means. We're going to be hitting five point four trillion dollars in new spending so ken. My question is this. I get the democrats. Want to expand relief. But are we getting into some historic territory when it comes to spending and when i say historic i want to put this in context the mandatory budget in twenty twenty one for the. Us government alone was two point nine six six trillion and that's a number that many analysts already thought myself included was pretty worrisome. These bills out spin significantly just the mandatory budget As a matter of fact he's three bills are spending close to twice that amount on cove and relief that even outpaces outweighs for defense another way to look at it as we take a look at the fiscal year of two thousand nine hundred nineteen. The federal budget came out Less than just the covid relief so the federal faster fiscal year. Twenty nineteen total government. Spending was four point. Four four eight trillion dollars. We the budget deficit on that of just shy of a trillion. Nine hundred eighty four billion. The covid relief bills into talapity will be more in spending than the entire federal budget in twenty nineteen alone. So can i know a lot of times in. This has been a point that you've made democrats say look. One of the big problems is that we need to have individuals who are willing to bow spin but have corresponding tax increases. But i don't see any republican democrats talking about these in terms of how we're going to pay for it especially given that we're talking about numbers that that far outpace total government spending in the past democrats often blame republicans for being the tax cut and spin party but are we watching democrats. Become the spin spin spin party. What do you think about that. I share some of your concerns about the economics of this. But this'll be the show. Where i keep saying where second best best best solution right. Because i think you're right that it it's actually spends more than it should with with less Less targeted this targeting than would be ideal and really very little idea about How it's going to impact federal budgets going forward so you would agree with me. I'm sure because again. I don't want to cut you off. They should have some spending. They need to have some either spending cuts or some taxing increases. As part of this bill. You agree with that. No this autumn an essay angry with the economics of your analysis but not with the politics of it. I think they just need to pass this bill. As is you know. Even though i think i think it's running some risks with the economy but i think the political risks on the other side just too great because they so i do think they need to pass the bill as is. Because you know it's not. It's not the bill that would be my ideal bill but we're in. We're in a situation here again where they are being forced to use the budget reconciliation process which is a non filibuster ble process because there's no republicans actually willing to negotiate in good faith or not enough republicans willing to negotiate in good faith that they could come up with a bipartisan relief. Bill in the ordinary course that wouldn't be filibustered and the reconciliation process can only be used a limited number of times a year. And so if they're going to burn one of their times using it they need to think of need to go very big because they can't come back and do very big is an understatement again. We're talking bigger than entire fiscal year. Yeah yeah but the thing is you know i i. I don't think it's a great use of money to give a fourteen hundred dollars to virtually every american but you know biden promised it on the on the campaign trail particularly for the georgia senate seats straight and so i think he needs to deliver on the promise because he promised it and i think people voted for him on that basis. And so we're not really on a blank slate here where the question is. What's what's the best way to me. For example he could still keep that promise and bring this bill in well lower than it is right now and maybe at least have to code covid spending under a a whole year worth of spending. I get what you're saying about. Hey i want. I want to keep my promises. But keeping his promises on the backs of like my children's inability to actually make money and pay. I mean i mean we're talking about eight doric debt so that means that the deficit. We're doing this projections right. If the deficit will be larger that all of these bills them are deficit. Spending for the first time in history we'd be multiples of trillions y- even when not in terms of real dollars th that's not even world war two spending we're we're surpassing that well. It's not going to be your children if it has negative impact on the economy. It's probably going to be felt in the form of inflation in the next year to you. I don't think it's our our Our parents generation engage in some deficit spending. And somehow we're still paying lower taxes than they did you know i. I don't think it's the the idea that there is deficit. Spending means that anyone's children are going to have to pay for it because the the Right now today. For instance. I think about eight percent of the federal budget is spent on interest on the debt and about twenty two percent of the federal budget is paid for by new borrowing. So you know it's always gonna be possible to to to keep more to pay and and as if you can't do right as a matter of fact we we know the points at which countries this is something that's been economically. You can just working out where when you're spending and borrowing surpass a certain level of your entire budget and in this would be a lot of times you end. This question like how much this put is near. Some of those levels of other countries changing potentially even our rating status. So i mean you fall. I don't think so. I don't think it could change. United states is not similarly situated to small countries. Were we're the reserve currency for the world. Where it where a place that. A lot of people want to invest skin. We did in fact have as you mentioned during world war. Two where we're the deficit was was larger than the than the amount of revenue erased. So we running deficits of more than one hundred percent and it didn't really in fact. We had pretty good economies in the years after the war when that when that deficit drop some stores handed higher tax rates. And that's where i think. Democrats are leading us down right one of the ways that was possible was you had a a a massively different tax base and different tax structure. So i mean you you know well. Here's the libertarian. Telling the democrat. Wait a second. There's you're doing this during a different a different type of revenue raising than you did during world war two but there's gonna be some tax reform. I'm not going to say it's going to be enough to pay for all this in the short run or anything but the long or well three probably never either. But i don't think it matters to pay it all off in the long run. And we've we've been managing to get by for about seventy five years without paying off debt in the long run and i should buy a mercedes though i mean but i again the way. The reconciliation rules work. Technically the filibuster-proof procedures can be used once each fiscal year for one spending bill for one separate taxing bill and for one separate bill to lift the debt ceiling. Now this year there may be able to be to each because fiscal year twenty twenty. One actually started back on october. First of twenty twenty which is the. Yeah yeah and none of those bills were ever done for for this fiscal year. so so i think there can be. The reconciliation can still be used for a spending bill. Bill a debt ceiling bill once for the current fiscal year. And then once more during the current fiscal year for the next fiscal year so So so maybe they get two shots. But i think that the tax bill will be a different one and just like trump in two thousand seventeen came in and used the tax reconciliation process to do the tax. Cut bill in two thousand seventeen with no democratic votes The the argon to do that and biden has been talking about raising the the income tax rate on corporations and the income tax rate on individuals who earn more than four hundred thousand and maybe doing something to reduce the disparity between the capital gains tax rate and the and the ordinary income tax rate. I mean biden has definitely been talking about some targeted tax increases and. I'm quite sure that's coming now. Whether that's going to add up to the kind of money that this that the that the stimulus bill is costing. I'm sure it won't. But but the but the tax bill will remain in effect. You know for years and the stimulus bill right now seems to be a one time deal. I mean this is the second time third time deal third. Yeah but the mid the middle one was much much smaller And i think the first one was actually larger than this one but we are gonna come near the end of the pandemic already about one out of every eight people in the country has already been vaccinated. I think by the end of summer the expectation is that substantially everybody who wants to be vaccinated will be vaccinated and i think you will see so many businesses reopening so many jobs opening up again that nobody will be talking about another stimulus. Bill like this in another six months. So so i think you know. Tax increases have a longer period of time to collect revenues than than the stimulus. Bill is going to be spending revenue. So i think things will come back into balance a bit Or at least be moving in the right direction. And and i wouldn't really believe in the parade of horrible about that. This is going to turn into greece or something in the whole thing is gonna collapse. I mean this is the united states. I don't think the whole thing is gonna collapse. I hate that point. But i i think that your your your analysis that you can kind of having. Endless spin is a long standing democratic. Trope the dignity of the real economic evidence and i. It's a matter of fact. I'm i'm in some ways. I'm happy as a matter of fact that the democrats are gonna do it via reconciliation. Because i do not think that this will go down in history as a good one. And i think the democrats are going to have to end up owning my only real question. Is i hope that republicans can capitalize on a positive way in two thousand twenty june two thousand twenty four and not allow it to help trump but but i think that in some ways or that kind of that trump party but no i think democrats are gonna end up having to eat this one and and i think that your idea of like well. It's just a little bit more spending. It can't have any harm is just an example of you agree with me and you say it's kind of second best but let's be honest. Democrats can force through whatever they want to so they could force through and actually good bill. They're choosing not to force the good bill because why there's no there's no reason it they don't they don't need again because they can only do this. This limited number of time. So so for instance they could do a bill where they just give it really fourteen hundred dollars you know if it were possible to come back later and do a bill to save the post office and were possible to come back later and do a bill to weekends tons of spending items that they cannot pay for in a historically large bill hopefully with their own votes and they know it's a bad bill and you're emitting. It's a bad bill so they've you guys gotta eat it thing. I think it's i don't say it's a bad bill. I say it's a second best bill. And i think it's better. It's worth doing on balance because it does a lot of things that need to be done and it won't otherwise be possible to do unless they do it right now. As part of this bill it is different than congress. Listen this is congress saying in one particular month we're going to spend our yearly budget more than our yearly budget. But somehow that's gonna work out that is insanity like there is no there is no universe in which any normal human being gets to spin their entire year's budget in a month and say hey that's not going to cause some kinds of problems now. Does that mean that the economy is gonna clap. of course we don't have to be the The polls of the world and say hey look we need to be in a gold standard. But i mean listen on the left and the democrats you guys have got to recognize. That's not a second best. That's a disastrous spill. What's what's the disaster. I'm sort of still missing. What you think. The harms are going to be honest. If none of the money spending mattered. Why why not just spend an infinite amount of money ever particular year including ridiculous right. No i'm not saying no harm so happen but i think if there's if like say we've had years where inflation has been pretty low like one percent you know so. Let's say next year because all this money's floating around inflation goes to two and a half percent. I think that's a harm. But i think the harm are outweighed by the benefits of doing the bill when you include. Both you know the fact that things really need to be done say the post office really needs to be bailed out. It'd be much more of a harm. If the post office failed than inflation went up a little bit. And in other cases. I think Political promises estimating the amount so when you say oh it's just going to be inflation a little bit. I mean again. We've at the rate that we're talking here if you go back and we're not talking about inflation increasing maybe one percent or two percent. We're talking more in the range of three and four percent and that's again when you're starting to get in those areas where we can see economically speaking that this has long term harms so for example to people's long-term savings right. So you can say. Hey that's only a even in your particular estimate. Let's say we put that two point five percent that means the individuals who were saving and trying to get done for retirement now have to do a two point. Five percent more per year for their earnings in order to be able to save. You're talking about actual working class human beings and it's a secondary back tax that they're paying attacks on the backside. That's the truth. Stock market's been doing better than ten percent a year people saving for retirement or not going to be that badly harmed if inflation goes up a little bit and i'm one of fifty five years old but the honest then that is in fact a harm on those people and invisible harm. And that's the that's the reason democrats are doing it this way. It's because they don't have to raise taxes they can have an invisible tax on a bunch of people who don't realize what this means is a compound interest over their savings over time. so what. You're what you're advocating for here is that you're saying look joe. Biden has to keep this promise in the way he's going to keep this promise is by having an invisible tax on individuals and that way he can push it through without actually having to talk about the real thing democrats could raise tax. Put it part of this deal. But they're not doing that because they'd rather have it at the back end. they don't wanna take. They don't wanna take responsibility for historic spending increases now. I think that's wrong on both counts for for one thing. I was being honest about it. I'm the one who raised the issue of inflation. My my point is that. I think that will happen but that i think the benefits outweigh the harms that Small amounts of inflation will cause and then the other thing is a lot of people who are being benefited by to the extent that the people are getting a fourteen hundred dollar checks a lot of the people getting those checks right now are people who actually are Either having you know out of work or having reduced comes or having a hard time making ends meet and so they really actually need the money to live on. And that's and that's actually more important to them. Do you think seventy five grand cap is still a little high. But but i think for some people who are who are making less right now You know they're really in a situation where they they need the emergency aid and that that's more important than than Being very vigilant about inflation. So i think there's cost and benefits here But i think when you're counting the cost there's also costs of doing too. Little obama was only able to too little in two thousand nine and it caused a much slower recovery. Then there might have otherwise been and i think government has to be seen as actually delivering results to people to restore some of the faith in government and to the extent that government can do that right. Now that's beneficial. And finally. I did say i do believe that. They're going to raise taxes. I think that's part of the plan. It's just not part of this bill. That's actually normal to do that in a separate bill. Well i mean i. I'm on board as long as you're going to try to make ends meet. But i think i think you are downplaying games and think this. This is an example of is oftentimes hammer on republicans for wanting to cut taxes. But not actually pay for those tax cuts and on the other side. This is gonna. This is the same kind of thing. Small amounts of tax increases will not pay for one year spending in three bills and so to say that even at the most minimal level of harm. You're talking about a particular back in tax. And i think the reason both parties do. This is something that mike. And i have talked about. Two is because it's politically expedient. It's a way of doing what you're suggesting. It looks like governments doing good at the same time. They're actually paying the bill but they're going to pay the bill that they're paying the bill in an invisible way In a dishonest way in my opinion because they don't want to pay for it on the upfront. And so you know. Maybe i'll eat my words if later in the year. democrats Move the needle either on spin some spending items and cut those back in a way that helps pay for this and they meaningfully raised taxes in a way. It's gonna even take a bite out of this. But i doubt it. I think i mean if you look at one point nine. Trillion spent now plus plus three. What about three point. Four point four four eight trillion for all three bills together. Yeah so no. I agree with you. They're not going to raise taxes to collect four point four trillion dollars in a year. But i think you know they're gonna raise taxes by maybe to collect. Maybe maybe a somewhere between a tenth an eighth of that amount of more in a year and those increases are going to stay in effect at least until the republicans come back and take control and reduce them again. There isn't going to be a need for spur stimulus spending like this every year. In fact tax revenues may go up even more than just the amount of tax increases. Because you're gonna have a lot of businesses coming back online after the pandemic and paying taxes again. You have a lot of people going back to work and paying taxes again. So i think revenues would just naturally go up even without a a rate increase. And i do think you're gonna see rate increases on corporations on people who earn more than four hundred grand and on capital income. Well in there because we are coming to the end of our show. Goodness gracious can. It's been a lot of fun doing the show. And i want to thank all of our listeners. For being part of the politics guys. I know that all of the host myself included love working on the show. It's truly labor of love. We wouldn't be doing it right now if it wasn't but to make this possible. It takes the support of amazing listeners. Like you and one of the ways you can help. The show is by subscribing to the politics guys on our podcast app of your choice and so does sharing episodes. It's one of the best kinds of advertising. We have we also need your support. One of the great things about being supporter. Is you get access to supporters only content which includes another full length. You've thought this one was long waits. He get to our bonus show where can anticipate something else. I don't even know. Actually we're going to take on in this show. We're gonna be taking on your questions and one of the new things that we have for. Supporters is a discord channel. And i'm going to be honest. I have not been as active in the discourse channel as i've hope discord. I'm a social media. Guy but discord has been difficult for me but i was getting into this and so a number of the questions. We actually got today. Because i was reaching out to our discord channel so if you want to be part of that discord channel maybe get your questions here on this show. We'd love for you to be able to chat with myself. Or with mike and gain access be becoming a supporter. So maybe wanna be supportive. You want to be able to listen to our listeners. Only content were ken. And i take on your questions here in just a moment. If you want to do that you can actually politics guys web page or check out our patriot on page so again if you had to patriot on com slash politics guys You can support the show there or you can head directly to politics guys dot com slash supports. You can join myself kin again on the bonus. Show this wednesday by heading to patriotdepot dot com slash politics. Guys the other really cool thing. I know that. Mike put out a call and we were trying to raise some funds for a new editing machine for him and we've already met that and we used another new tool which was And so you can also support the show via via now. So if you've got a question comet correction just a random thought you'd like to share you can always reach us at nail at politics. Guys dot com also on twitter at politics guys the executive producers of the politics guys bruce johnson wilmer moreno endre massacre nafta nathan daniel. To- chris wilkinson. Today show was produced by myself. Trey orndorff we'll be back with the new show next week. I hope you'll join us then.