Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - Mini Show #31: Dems' Amazon Ties, Life Expectancy, Georgia Elections, Mitch McConnell, Media Partisanship, & More!

Episode Date: April 16, 2022

Krystal and Saagar talk about Democrats ties to Amazon, life expectancy drop, Trump's influence in Georgia, Mitch McConnell's moral boundaries, Brian Stelter getting dunked on, Jerry Springer, and congressional staffer working conditions!To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show uncut and 1 hour early visit: https://breakingpoints.supercast.com/To listen to Breaking Points as a podcast, check them out on Apple and SpotifyApple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/breaking-points-with-krystal-and-saagar/id1570045623 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Kbsy61zJSzPxNZZ3PKbXl Merch: https://breaking-points.myshopify.com/The Lever: https://www.levernews.com/Greg Bluestein: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/691042/flipped-by-greg-bluestein/James Li: https://www.youtube.com/c/5149withJamesLi Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. is irresponsible son, but I have DNA proof that could get the money back. Hold up. They could lose their family and millions of dollars? Yep. Find out how it ends by listening to the OK Storytime podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts. Camp Shane, one of America's longest running weight loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. But there were some dark truths behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. Enter Camp Shame, an eight-part series examining the rise and fall of Camp Shane and the culture that fueled its decades-long success. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week

early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. and seeker of male validation. I'm also the girl behind Boy Sober, the movement that exploded in 2024. You might hear that term and think it's about celibacy, but to me, Boy Sober is about understanding yourself outside of sex and relationships. It's flexible, it's customizable, and it's a personal process.

Singleness is not a waiting room. You are actually at the party right now. Let me hear it. Listen to VoiceOver on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Cable news is ripping us apart, dividing the nation, making it impossible to function as a society

and to know what is true and what is false. The good news is that they're failing and they know it. That is why we're building something new. Be part of creating a new, better, healthier, and more trustworthy mainstream by becoming a Breaking Points premium member today at breakingpoints.com. Your hard-earned money is gonna help us build

for the midterms and the upcoming presidential election so we can provide unparalleled coverage of what is sure to be one of the most pivotal moments in American history. So what are you waiting for? Go to BreakingPoints.com to help us out. All right, guys, time for our weekly partnership segment with The Lever. This week, we are speaking to Matthew Cunningham. Cook, go ahead and bring Matthew up on the screen. He's a researcher and writer focusing on capital markets, health care, and retirement policy. Welcome, Matthew. It's good to see you, Matthew. Thanks for having me on, guys.

Absolutely. So you wrote a phenomenal piece, let's put this up on the screen, that just tracks factually the distance between Biden's words and what he has actually done as president. So the headline here is, Biden offers Amazon workers rhetoric but no action. The president lauded a union drive and declared Amazon, here we come. But he's refused to even follow his own task force's limited recommendations to boost unionization. This is something that we've been following here as well, Matthew, because Biden famously declared that he wanted to be the most pro-union president in history. How has he done in living up to that bold proclamation? Yeah, I mean, you know, I will say, you know, the NLRB is doing a great job with very limited

resources. And, you know, his budget hasn't asked for enough resources to go to the NLRB, nor has he challenged Manchin or Sinema on their constant obstruction of any type of funding for agencies that are doing good work. But that's where kind of most of the focus has been. But there's a whole universe of separate things that the president can do via executive action to improve the lives of millions of workers. And there we've seen very little developments. I mean, so Tom Gagan, the well-known labor lawyer, has said, you know, the president could actually sign an executive order saying any federal contract has to have a union contract. And so, of course, there's been a total media blackout about that idea.

But even on much more modest aims, so requiring these large law firms to disclose the full range of union busting activity that they're engaged in in places like Amazon, we haven't seen any types of development on that front, despite the fact that Obama and Tom Perez propagated a very decent rule in 2016. And in April 2021, there was discussion that Biden would bring it back. Once this task force report was released, there was no discussion whatsoever about bringing back this so-called persuader rule. And it's particularly relevant because the Amazon workers actually had a lot of success using the existing disclosures for direct union busting to expose the union busters in the warehouse. So this would give Amazon workers, other workers seeking to organize a lot more tools to expose what's happening inside of their workplace if the persuader rule came back.

But we haven't seen any developments on that front. Got it. So can you go a little bit more into the Amazon piece here specifically? Like why would it help Amazon? And also what are some of the past ties which could explain some of this inaction? Yeah. So as the union busting campaign was going on inside of the warehouse, one of the few tools that the workers had was to expose these union busters using the existing forms. And the persuader rule would really enhance those efforts. Now, what we do know is there's extensive relationships between Amazon and the Democratic Party. So Amazon's top communications chief is Jay Carney, who was President Obama's press secretary.

Amazon's general counsel, David Zapolsky, donated $300,000 to the Biden Victory Fund. This is the same guy who called Chris Smalls not smart or articulate. Amazon hired, in December 2020, Amazon hired the Ricchetti firm as one of their top lobbyists in Washington. That firm is ran by Jeff Ricchetti, whose brother, Steve Ricchetti, is the senior advisor to the president. There's really no kind of limit, actually, to how tightly hewed Amazon is into the Democratic Party. Jamie Gorlick, who was a top Justice Department official under Bill Clinton, is on the board of Amazon. There's very, very, very tight links at this point. And there's been no pressure whatsoever from Democrats in Congress on the Biden administration or on Democratic leadership to even examine these ties, much less sever them. Well, and here's one that I didn't realize. So we have talked here already about how this major Democratic consulting group, global strategy group, was hired by Amazon to be part of their union busting campaign.

They were so integral that they're actually named by Amazon Labor Union in a complaint against Amazon for illegal union busting behavior. So that's how central they were to this strategy. I knew they were a big player here in Washington. I didn't know that Jen Psaki actually used to work for them, which is something you point out in this piece. So yet another tie there. And then I find, I mean, I just find it so disgusting that they would even consider being involved with this campaign when they were asked Global Strategy Group about their union busting efforts at Amazon, they said, oh, we deeply regret being involved in any way, as if they didn't know exactly what they were doing the entire time. So talk about that piece of it, Matthew, because I really do find it outrageous. I mean, I do think Global Strategy Group is really indicative of some deeper rot here because Global Strategy Group was actually investigated and forced to come to a

settlement for engaging in highly unethical activities as it related to pension fund investments and private equity. This was 15 years ago. And Andrew Cuomo actually, of all people, forced them to sign a code of conduct where they would improve their ethical standards. And again, after this, I mean, just like we saw with companies engaged in the financial crisis like Goldman Sachs, they came back bigger and better, expanded their footprint even larger outside of New York.

And yeah, now enjoy a roster of Democratic groups, including top super PACs, the DNC, the DSCC, the DTREP. And again, Global Strategy Group has apologized, but where is a broader set of questions about, number one, should we be hiring a union busting firm to work for the Democratic Party? And two, are these people very good at their jobs elections all the time yeah we should have been we should encourage amazon and everybody else to hire this group every time whoever came up with like putin's price hike and build back better let's get them on the union buster side. That's actually a great point. I think the overall picture here that you paint is really important because, look, I've tried to highlight the fact that, you know, having a National Labor Relations Board with Biden's appointees that has been favorable to workers was really key in Starbucks. It was really key in Amazon because some key decisions went the workers way.

It's really key right now because you have Amazon basically trying to say, oh, it was stolen, the election was rigged, et cetera, et cetera. And so having those personnel in place as opposed to the people who were actively hostile to unions who were in place under Trump, that matters a lot. But Biden says he wants to be the most pro-union president in history. And he doesn't just get to shift the blame to the Senate parliamentarian or the filibuster or Joe Manchin or Kyrsten Sinema. Because you're laying out very clearly, first of all, some problematic ties to Amazon. But second of all, most critically here, there are things he could do today with the stroke of a pen that he is choosing not to do. So I think, is that a decent portrayal of the big picture here and take away from the story?

I think that's absolutely right. Yeah. And I also just think even on the NLRB component, I mean, Biden could be using his bully pulpit every day to say this agency that is doing critically important work is incredibly underfunded as it relates to historical efforts. And it's time for to name people who are holding this up where it's actually I mean, Joe Manchin co-sponsored the PRO Act. It's Sinema more than anybody else who's blocking an increase in funding, combined with the Biden administration doing good work inside of the White House and inside of these key agencies, they're never able to get the time of day with the people who are actually calling the shots. Yeah, I think that is all well said. Phenomenal reporting. Thank you for joining us today. Great to meet you. Thanks, man. Thanks for having me. Some really troubling news that's just come out. Let's go ahead and put this up there on the screen, which is that UF life expectancy has dropped for the second year in a row. So you might say, well,

of course, because of COVID, but it's not just COVID. And I think that that's one of the main things that they point to within the study, Crystal, which is that there was an extensive loss of life that, yes, includes the hundreds of thousands of people who died from COVID, but also from increase in deaths of despair, in fentanyl deaths hit all time high, alcoholism hit all time high, drug use. Actually, I was just reading a new study that if you were below the age of 60, your risk of dying from one of these deaths of despair, suicide, drugs, or alcohol abuse was actually higher than your risk of dying from COVID-19 over the last two years. So you combine a elderly,

sick, overweight population with a mentally just grasping, stressed, younger population, and you have two years of declining life expectancy. So there's an effort right now in order to paint this purely as COVID-related. And that's true in a sense, but it's not 100% just because of the COVID virus. Well, and these are sort of the initial findings of this study, and more research is needed to really pinpoint exactly what this was attributable to. But one thing that is interesting is that now we've had two years in a row, and by interesting, I mean devastating, where you have life expectancy dropping. And this, of course, after we have the introduction of these highly successful vaccines

that a lot of researchers predicted, okay, after we have those, then we're going to get back on track because it's extraordinary for a wealthy country to see a decline in life expectancy of this nature. But instead, they saw a continued trend in this direction. So life expectancy dropped by 0.4 a year in 2021, leading to a net loss of 2.26 years over the two-year period. This is an outlier, guys. Other peer nations, similarly wealthy and developed countries, they also found a small decrease during these years, but a net loss of 0.3 years, as opposed to, for us, 2.3 years. So we lost two years more effectively than our peer nations did during COVID. Now, as I said, there's sort of more research needed to pinpoint exactly the causes, but there are some interesting things that we can

say about this year versus the previous year. In the previous year, it was overwhelmingly Black and Hispanic Americans who saw a decline in life expectancy. In fact, Hispanic men in 2020 lost more than four years of life expectancy. And by the way, they did not see a rebound in 2021. The theory is that, you know, overwhelmingly, you know, working class people are disproportionately black and brown, were hit hardest by COVID. We all know that. So that was the thinking as to why there was such a significant drop among those groups during that year. This time around, actually, those groups, they didn't get better, but they didn't get worse. And I actually think black Americans did tick up a tiny bit. The big drop this time was among white Americans. And that's why there's some theorizing that it could be related to increased levels of

vaccine hesitancy, especially among older white men contributing to this life expectancy drop. But I do think it's important to point out, like, there are a lot of things that could have gone into that. We've certainly been tracking here the deaths of despair, the just stunning and horrific rates of overdose and addiction and deaths from alcoholism and all of those signs of a society that just is not well. The last thing that I wanted to point out, which I think is really important here, is it's easy to just despair and say, well, why are we such outliers and kind of throw up our hands like everything is just wrong? But there was a study that said if we had just, if we had universal health care like

the rest of our peer nations, we could have saved 330,000 lives just from the pandemic because oftentimes it's people who are uninsured who don't want to go to the hospital until it's ultimately too late. So a lot of solutions to this are obvious and on the table and other rich countries are doing it and we just decide not to and have a system that is too corrupt to allow us to pursue those alternatives. Yeah. I mean I look at this too and I just did the math quick back of the napkin. That means our loss of life is seven times higher than the rest of the developed world. Yeah.

That's crazy. Horrible. I mean, crazy. And if you point to one of the quotes here is that many people are dying in the prime of their lives. And to see the white male figure drop like that too is really a disaster. Underlying health conditions has just got to be one of the top answers here, which is that, and they even point to that, which is that, look, vaccine or not, if you've got diabetes and you're fat, and especially if you're obese, you are way more likely to die, not just of COVID, of cancer, of basically everything.

And those underlying health conditions combined with a lack of access to healthcare, especially because those underlying health conditions are disproportionate amongst the people who are the poorest in this country, you combine that with COVID, not just the virus, but a lot of other stuff, alcohol, deaths of despair, you're just going to make it so that our life expectancy has dropped so precipitously like this. This is a sign of a dying civilization. Andrew Yang, one of my favorite quotes he ever said on the debate stage 2020 was, look, the ultimate metric is, are people living or are people dying? And if more people are dying and are not living as long, that's about as stark of a metric as you can get. That was in 2019 before all of this. So now two years in a row of a dramatic drop in life expectancy. And let me tell you something else. There's a dramatic lack of

interest and curiosity from most of the press about this issue, which, yeah, it is sort of the most basic metric of how we're doing as a society, especially a wealthy society. Bernie Sanders led a subcommittee hearing to try to dig at what is going on. Let me bring in experts. Let's figure out what did the statistics actually show about how and why this is happening and what we can do about it. No media coverage, no interest whatsoever. All they cared about was like palace. At that time, it was like palace intrigue about Joe Manchin and whatever was going on there in a very sort of substance-free, surface-level, personality-driven way in Georgia and also the governor's race. And joining us now, rejoining the show, an old friend here, Greg Blustein, who has a brand new book out. The title of it is Flipped, How Georgia Turned Purple and Broke the Monopoly on Republican Power. And that is what it looks like.

You guys should all check that out. who are longtime viewers, you might remember when we were building up to the general election last time around, we polled people on like, which reporters should we have on to break down all of these races? And that's how we found Greg. And now you've ended up and gone and gotten nationally famous. So we don't get to talk to you as much, but it's great to see you again. Good to see you, man. Hey, I'll come on anytime you want. Oh, thank you. So just tell us a little bit about the book. How is it that Georgia went from being this sort of like solid red forget about it Democrat state into now a true swing state, which could go either way? Yeah, it was not some overnight success. This is not really a fluke. This took years of work from not just Stacey Abrams, but an entire web of activists and organizers and volunteers

and voters around her. It took flipping the Atlanta suburbs that used to be Republican fortresses and have become younger and more diverse. They're no longer this monolithically white upper middle class stereotype that we think of when we think of suburbs of big cities. And of course, it took authentic messages. It took Democrats realizing that they should no longer run as Republican lights, but they should run as liberals with progressive messages. That helped energize and connect with a group of voters that felt disenchanted and disconnected with the electoral process and helped them, you know, capture hundreds of thousands of Democratic voters who never voted in midterms and even sometimes skipped

presidential elections. So Greg, a fascinating element of this story to me is the MAGA element, where Trump himself is somehow able to lose the state of Georgia and then even more so tanks these two Senate elections in the runoffs. Can you just talk to us? Well, first of all, is my narrative accurate? Is that Trump's fault or is it about macro political forces? How exactly do you think that this will then play out also in the future with the current primary of David Perdue and Brian Kemp? That's a great question because yes, Trump is partly to blame. You know, his vote, his message of go vote in a rigged election in the January 2021 runoffs did not exactly help Kelly Loeffler, David Perdue, who were constantly trying to placate the president, appease him as he kept

moving the goalposts towards more and more vigorous demands that eventually get to the point where he demanded that they block Joe Biden's electoral college victory in the U.S. Senate. And this is still playing out. I mean, right now, all those characters I wrote about in the book in 2020, they're still at the center of the 2022 drama in Georgia and nationally, with David Perdue challenging Governor Brian Kemp for the Republican nomination. And David Perdue, of course, has Donald Trump's backing. Donald Trump even came to Georgia not that long ago and said that he'd rather see Stacey Abrams as governor than Brian

Kemp. So this just shows you how this Trump fuel dynamics are still shaping Georgia's election. And really, I think Georgia is the biggest test of Trump's influence in the entire nation. Yes. Well, talk about that a little bit more, because I have to tell you, Sagar and I kind of called this primary thus far on the Republican side a little bit wrong because Trump had been so outspoken about his Brian Kemp hatred as you were just demonstrating. We thought, oh, once Perdue gets in, it probably lights out for Kemp because if you look at Trump's approval ratings among Republican voters in Georgia, it's still extraordinarily high. He still carries a lot of weight in the party. But as of the last polls I saw, Kemp continues to hold on to a lead there. So what is happening in Georgia that is different from what sort of, you know, people observing from the outside predicted might happen in this primary? You're exactly right. Not only does Governor Kemp hold

a lead, but he has a double-digit lead. He has an 11-point lead in some of the recent polls, including a recent poll that came out just after Donald Trump's last rally, which was just a few weeks ago here in Georgia. And it's defied some of the expectations. I mean, Governor Kemp treated this as a toss-up race right when David Perdue got in the contest. But it shows you the extent of Donald Trump's appeal. No one in Georgia who's watching this closely is counting David Perdue out. We have no idea how the next few weeks will go, whether or not the Trump base will show up in droves

in the May 24th primary. But what we do know is that Brian Kemp has institutional structural advantages right now, starting with a huge fundraising advantage. He has outside support from groups like the Republican Governors Association, which is spending $5 million on his campaign just through May.

And he's got the next few weeks to sign a bunch of bills that conservatives love, including a pro-gun bill that he's signing this week that has long been a dream of Second Amendment advocates. Oh, that's really interesting. Dog out of the way. Yeah, we don't mind. Dog doesn't mind.

You're all good. Audience won't care. We'll edit this, don't worry. Sorry about that. You're good. It's all good. Completely fine. We can edit it.

We'll edit that. All right. I almost want to leave that in. All right, I'm joking, I'm joking. Three, two, one. On the other side here is the Senate elections. I mean, talk to us about the macro political environment because at the same time, Trump effect aside, it's not like Republicans aren't up nine or 10 points or whatever on the generic ballot. Georgia already a barely purple-ish state and

historically Republican. How does this play out now in the Senate races specifically that are coming up in 2022? Yeah, this is the worry for Republicans right now is that, you know, that Donald Trump will work against those advantages the Republicans have in November, going against a crowd of, you know, historically advantaged during midterm elections, being the party out of power. And Hershel Walker is Donald Trump's candidate for Senate. And he might be the only candidate of all the eight candidates that Donald Trump endorsed who doesn't need Donald Trump's endorsement at all. He has such high name recognition, such high visibility in Georgia.

He's the celebrity candidate who also has Mitch McConnell's backing. And of course, this famous, you know, heroic stance as a former UGA football star. So all those together, you know, Herschel Walker is trying to play this sort of above the board campaign, not focusing on his rivals, focusing only on Raphael Warnock. But what he doesn't want is Donald Trump coming in and sort of confusing voters with this go vote in a rigged election rhetoric. Right. I mean, I feel like Georgia is ground zero for kind of the Trump paradox, because, you know, not to undercut the organizational efforts of activists, but the big thing that flipped the suburbs was also opposition to Donald Trump. And so on the

one hand, you know, he was a great boon to the Democratic Party and helps him get over the finish line in these two key Senate races. On the other hand, he's also very energizing for a Republican base that continues to love this guy. So how do you think this is ultimately all going to shake out, Greg? Yeah, you're exactly right. His popularity among Republicans is still in Georgia, is still in the high 70s in recent polls. It's not quite 90s anymore, but it's still 70s. And still a significant number of Republican voters in Georgia and elsewhere, but in Georgia, say that they're more likely to vote for Donald Trump. Sorry, they're more likely to vote for a Trump-backed candidate than not. And that's going to continue to play out in Georgia.

And you're right. The suburbs flipped not just because of Democratic messaging, but also because of this revulsion to Trump. With him not on the ballot in the May primaries and the November election, we're not sure how that will play out. But we do know that even if he's not on the ballot, he is still seeking to shape Georgia in a number of ways.

Yeah. Well, Greg, we can't appreciate you enough for joining the show. Everybody go and buy the book. We're going to have a link down there in the description. Let's get it up to the top of the bestsellers chart. Really appreciate you joining us, sir. Thank you.

Yep, go give that puppy scratching at the door some love. Yes, give him some love. Oh, sorry about that. Oh, you're good. We don't mind. You're good. No, it's fine. Some interesting comments from one Senator Mitch McConnell recently

when asked in an interview about whether or if he had any moral red lines, what they might be. Let's take a listen. You are known for playing a ruthless style of politics. Where do you draw your moral red lines? I didn't realize I was known for playing a ruthless style. I thought, my wife thinks I'm a really nice guy. My kids like me.

I got a lot of friends. So that's four so far, okay. I'm shocked to hear such a comment. Let's just take as a premise, and I think the audience might agree with me, that there are some people, maybe some substantial people in this country who might agree with that assertion. I'm sure you could find some. So moral red lines, where do you draw

them? I'm perfectly comfortable with the way I have conducted my political career and I'd be happy to respond to any specificity you want to apply to the term what was it moral red lines moral red line yeah well let me give you very comfortable with my moral red line let me give you one specific help me understand this i watched your speech last year in february on the senate floor after the second impeachment vote on donald trump And it was an extraordinary speech. You spoke very powerfully against the most powerful figure in your party, the president. And you said Donald Trump's actions preceding the January 6th insurrection were a, quote, disgraceful dereliction of duty, and that he was practically and morally responsible, morally responsible, your words, for provoking the events of that day.

How do you go from saying that to two weeks later saying you'd absolutely support Donald Trump if he's the Republican nominee in 2024? Well, as a Republican leader of the Senate, it should not be a front-page headline that I will support the Republican nominee for president. After you've said that about him, I think it's astonishing. I think I have an obligation to support the nominee of my party.

Is there anything they could do? I will. That will mean that whoever the nominee is has gone out and earned the nomination. Okay, but Donald Trump earned it last time. And I'm just trying to understand, you know, what you say matters. You're a very important voice in this country. You're the leader of your party. And you seem to hold two concurrent, conflicted positions.

No, not at all inconsistent. If I just finish. Not at all inconsistent. I stand by everything I said on January 6th and everything I said on February the 13th. I understand that. But what I want to understand, which I haven't heard you address, is... Because I don't get to pick the Republican nominee for president. They're elected by the Republican voters all over the country.

I fully understand that. But take Liz Cheney, for example. You want to spend some more time on this as well? I actually do, because I actually... No, no, I genuinely want to understand this. I really want to understand how you think about this. Because Liz Cheney, who has the same view of you as of January 6th, she said she doesn't want Donald Trump anywhere near the White House

and she's going to work to not make that happen because she thinks that there are some things more important than party loyalty. Well, maybe you ought to be talking to Liz Cheney. No, but I'm not trying to... It's not a gotcha. I'm just actually trying to understand, like, is there any threshold for you of what someone could do on a moral level? Well, you know, I say many things I'm sure people don't understand.

There's a lot to unpack there. I mean, first of all, Mitch can't name a single moral red line. And I think that is demonstrated throughout. Yeah, sadly, that's the type of just pure power Machiavellian politics that gets rewarded in D.C. And so I think, you know, I mean, that is not that revealing because I think we all sort of suspected that he doesn't really have any moral red lines. And if he'd been able to come up with one, it would have been bullshit anyway. But I also think, I mean, there's also something to be said about the fact that he holds up, like, Liz Cheney as Paragon of Virtue, given her extraordinarily odious record and, you know, consistent warmongering and all of that. So there's a lot going on here.

Yeah, I mean, look, it's funny, obviously, in order to see it happen. And at the end of the day, I've said this before, like McConnell does not care about much except for power and then very like bedrock couple of things, Supreme Court. All the guy cares about is like the judiciary and beyond that, cutting taxes. He's achieved both of those quite well in his life. That's really what he's interested in. To the extent that Trump or whoever is a Republican president, as you saw under Trump, when Trump was like, hey, we should build a wall and possibly raise, it was called a border adjustment tax, which would have taxed a lot of the goods coming over the U.S.-Mexico border,

he was like, no, we're not, that's not going to happen. Or whenever any of these types of proposals, which would have cut against orthodoxy, infrastructure was a good example. Trump wanted to do a $2 trillion bill. McConnell said, how about $600 billion in most of its fake private investment? And of course that fell apart. I mean he's looking out for the donor class.

That's all he cares about. And it's when he first was coming into power in Kentucky. And really, I mean there basically was no Republican Party in Kentucky. And really, I mean, there basically was no Republican Party in Kentucky before Mitch McConnell came along. And he positioned himself as this sort of like good governance, like progressive reformer against money and politics and all of that. I mean, we can see that that was just,

he put his finger in the wind and thought that that would be a good campaign message and selling point. Now, you know, it's much more clear that what he actually is all about is just power. And part of that power base is protecting the donor class. And that's how I read his actions with regards to January 6th as well. Because I remember covering it, you and I together at the time. And I think he kind of put his finger in the wind to see if, doesn't love having Trump as the head of the party because Trump is unpredictable.

They're not on great terms at this point, all of that stuff. So there was kind of a finger put in the wind with his initial comments of like, could this actually be his undoing? Is this actually an opening to unseat Trump as the head of the Republican Party? He gets the information back, basically, no, the base is still with him. The Republican, your caucus is still more or less with him, at least what they're willing to say and do publicly. And so that's why you see the flip. So even in that moment that Swan holds up as an example of like, here you are having principle. I think if you scratch an inch beneath the surface, that also was about a kind of power politics, just like, let me see if this is an opening I can exploit to reassert my own power and position within the party, not any sort of actual objection to Trump and the events of January 6th. So that's the best way to understand Mitch McConnell. You're never going to get a straight answer out of him

in terms of any sort of moral red lines because ultimately it's all about, you know, service of his own position and power in the donor class. That's it. All right, guys, a little moment over on CNN that caught our eye. So you might recall we actually covered this study that came out of Yale where they paid Fox News viewers to watch CNN and then to see if it actually changed their opinions. And it was very interesting because it revealed like people are not the hardened partisan automatons that you think they

are, that if they consume different information, they're going to have different ideas about the world. That's both good. It's also bad because it shows you how impactful cable news continues to be, especially for boomers, since their overwhelming demographic is on the older side. So CNN decides to cover this, specifically Brian Stelter decides to cover this study with one of the researchers who is involved, but they try to frame it as just about how Fox News is feeding their viewers selective information, which of course they are, but the Yale researcher is having none of it. Let's take a look. So Josh, you all call this partisan coverage filtering. And basically you're proving what

we've sensed for a while, which is Fox viewers are in the dark about bad news for the GOP. That's right. Fox and CNN cover different issues, and Fox News predominantly covers issues that make the GOP look good and make Democrats look bad. And on the flip side, CNN engages in this partisan coverage filtering as well that we find. For example, during this time, the Abraham Accords were signed, and these were the agreements where Israel, the UAE, and Bahrain signed a major peace agreement. And we see that Fox News covered this really major accomplishment about 15 times more than CNN did. So we establish both networks are really engaging in this partisan coverage filtering. It's not about one side.

It's about the media writ large. I think you're engaging in some both-sides-ism there, Josh. I'm not trying to lay out a moral equivalency. It's not about what an objective standard is. It's really about how all networks do engage in this. And in order for viewers to get a realistic picture of the world, we need viewers to see all types of information. And unfortunately, what we find in this study is that the viewers don't want to engage in watching all sides. So as David mentioned, we see that viewers, we pay them for four weeks to watch CNN.

But then after those payments stop, they go back to watching Fox News. So even though we try to incentivize viewers to watch both Fox and CNN, they don't want to engage in that hard work. They want to really just watch the side that makes them feel good. And this is why the media has such an important responsibility to cover both sides, to hold both parties accountable. There's a lot. That's so awkward. Why does Stilter sit like this? Yeah, that was very odd.

And also, why was that other guy, why are their producers so bad that they keep that one guy up on the screen? Just go to him. And he's like, yeah, just like nodding vigorously. But the point was well done. Yeah.

Kudos to him for holding his ground, even in the most awkward way possible. He's like, well, look, like both sides, engage. And his behavior, and he's like, sounds like, also, he's such an untalented interviewer. Sounds like you're engaging in both sides. Sounds like you're engaging in both sides engage his behavior and he's like sounds like also he's such an untalented interviewer sounds like you're engaging in both sides sounds like you're

engaging in both sides it's like aesthetic criticisms aside substantive point being made there you both engage in selective coverage you both are

engaged in the exact same game that's why I get really annoyed too sometimes Fox picks up our segments slamming CNN and it's like

okay fine but like we don't really like you either. When he had a cover of us thrashing you guys. Yeah, you're not, right? And it's not like CNN covers the other side, but more what we're saying is you cannot be a member of this industrial complex and then just use selective outrage on the other side because you're just as guilty of doing the exact same thing. Our whole point is, no, curse a pox on all of your houses. Right.

You're all terrible. And, of course, they don't want everyone here. Right. And their incentives are never going to change. So there's no reforming those systems. The only thing you can do is try to supplant them and replace them ultimately. But yeah, you love to see when these anchors are actually faced with the truth and the reality of their own selective coverage, selective outrage. I think that the term partisan filtering is actually a really good one because that's exactly what it is. I mean, so much of it of how they control information isn't just about like, you know, sometimes they're outright lies and outright, you know, spinning of stories or concocting of

narratives that don't really exist. but a lot of it has to do with just which stories you choose to focus on. And I remember very clearly when I first started going on Fox News back a decade ago, they were obsessed with these stories. This is the Tea Party era. They were obsessed with these stories where they'd find like, this government agency paid $15 for a muffin, and they'd do like a whole thing on that. Yeah, the lobster dinner. Yeah, to try to paint the entire government as just like worthless and corrupt, and they're just, you know, flagrantly misusing your money without looking at, you know, I'm sure there's plenty of that that's going on, but without looking at the bigger picture,

or telling you that, oh, when you cut the budget for these agencies, it doesn't cut back on the $15 muffins, it cuts back on vital services that are actually going to people. So just one example that always stood out to me of the partisan filtering that Fox engages in, and of course CNN, obviously engaging in the same, and Stelter doesn't really have any answer to it other than being like, this sounds like both sides of the same. He always says something along the lines of, you don't understand how CNN really works then. It's like, no,

I think we do, dude. Yeah, I don't think you're watching the same network we are. No, no. We're watching. We got it, brother. Hey guys,

Kyle Kalinsky is letting us post some of the clips from his channel that we think you guys will really love in the Breaking Points community on our channel

yep let's get to it jerry springer you know had a very famous um talk show it uh it's going off the air after being on air for a very very long time um he did an interview with dino badala on his sirius xm radio show and uh you know springer was asked some political questions i don't know how much of a political guy he is uh Maybe he's dabbled, dabbled in it every now and then. But he was asked about the rise of Trump is an interesting question. And Jerry Springer's answer. It's a very interesting response, too. So I'll have you take a look at it. But you'll see Jerry Springer is basically trying to almost like blames himself and his show for the rise of Trump. Take a look. Do you see a connection? Do you see a line between the success of the Jerry Springer show, which was everywhere? It defined a decade to be blunt. And the way people look at TV and the way what people they let people get away with. Do you think that on some level, sincerely, I'm being honest with you. Yeah, I was fine. Do you think it contributed to

people accepting someone like Donald Trump? Probably social media more. But yes, there's no question. The behavior of some of the people on the show is exactly Donald Trump. The point is, the reason there's more respect given to the people who were on my show is they have enough sense not to run for president. They're on the show letting their emotions out, their feelings out. They don't speak the Queen's English. They don't have money. They don't live in palaces. They aren't rich and famous. But they have feelings like everybody else. And when they get angry, they probably curse and they yell and sometimes fight because they don't have the skills to

settle things in different ways. That's Trump. But what made Trump unique, the only thing that separates him from the guests on my show is the fact that he had this delusion of he knew how to run the world and run the country when, in fact, he knows he knows nothing about how you run a country. And we paid the price for that. But, yeah, of course, there's similarities, except for the issue of, gee, I don't think I ought to be president. That was an interesting back and forth to me. So the argument strikes me as this. My show helped to normalize degeneracy. And in that normalization of degeneracy, you get this candidate who's degenerate.

And so that became not a negative thing in the eyes of the public. It became maybe even a positive thing that, you know, my show helped lowered the standards for the way people should act. And Trump came along and gave us a hefty dose of that very similar type stuff to what you see on my show. And that led to his rise. Another way of putting it is like Trump brought about the death of civility. My show helped bring about the death of civility and Trump finalized the death of civility in our politics. And so he's sort of, he's trying to like take ownership for Trump. Now you also mentioned social media more has, has led to that as well.

Um, you know, social media is a place where everybody goes to be the worst version of themselves. You could argue that, or you could argue the most authentic version of themselves, the most shit posty version of themselves, however you want to talk about it. Um, so do I buy that argument? I actually don't, I don't buy that argument at all because to me, to the extent you're going to make any kind of argument like that, the one that appeals more to me is the cult of celebrity argument. So he had a built in advantage in running for president because he had been a celebrity for so long. And, you know, in this country, whatever people want to pretend, there is a worship of celebrity. There is a worship of, you know, faces and people

that we all know to one extent or another based on whatever they do for a living that's in the public eye. And so I think he had a built-in advantage, even though he was kind of viewed as a joke and, you know, rightly so to some extent. I think the cult of celebrity angle is one of the reasons that, you know, led to the rise of him and perhaps gave more of an advantage at the beginning than anybody may have thought he had. But to me, the main culprit, and you guys all know this, is the real reason for the rise of Trump is the total breakdown of trust in our institutions. And don't get me wrong, Trump was and is a total demagogue and a charlatan and a con man and a fraud. But I think people rightly looked at our institutions having failed them.

And so then when you have somebody who comes along who postures as, no, I'm the effective person. I'm the efficient person. Only I can fix it. And I'm looking out for you. He literally said the one only I can fix it. I alone can fix it. Something like that. And, um, the posturing worked, you know, it was, do you really trust like the media would go after Trump relentlessly, but his argument was so easy. It's like, you're going to trust these people, these guys, they've given you a million reasons not to trust them. So you should trust me over them. You know, the same people that brought you the Iraq war, you're going to trust them when they criticize me. And then he would postulate he was against the Iraq war when of course he wasn't, he was tepidly

for it. There's that clip on, on Howard Stern where he talks about it and tepidly comes out in favor of the war. Um, but I think it's more of that. I think it's more of the media has been lying to you all this time. Obviously the government has failed you a million ways, whether it be the Iraq war, the Afghanistan war, the trillions of dollars spent overseas for absolutely nothing. The subprime mortgage crisis and the Great Recession where people lost their homes and lost their livelihood and wages had been stagnant and all the jobs are outsourced. And then you got this guy who comes along and postures against it.

And also, by the way, he does the classic elitist trick of scapegoating. Don't look up. Don't look at, you know, the billionaires and the corporations as to why you're hurting. Look at the fucking, it's the Muslims. It's the Mexicans. And so, I mean, basically a huge number of the Republican voters all went for it

and he picked off enough independents to get the job done. And so I think that's what led to the rise of Trump. But I will also say, you know, to Jerry Springer and his show, I don't know how much of it was planned and how much of it was, you know, really authentic and people genuinely going through these problems and having all sorts of tumultuous issues. That's a hard word to say. But I think authenticity will be inauthenticity every time. So that civility politics was going to go out one way or another, whether it was with Trump or even with Bernie. It was going to go out one way or another, where you were going to get somebody who's more of a quote unquote straight shooter and straight talker than you were going to get

the button down politician who talks really fakely and has a weird rhythm and cadence to what they say. So I think that was going out either way. Either way, look, I think actually Jerry's being too hard on himself here. I don't think his show is, is led to the rise of Trump or help facilitate Trump or lay the groundwork for Trump to the extent you're going to point at any other individual figure in public life that did that. Maybe Sarah Palin, because she was the precursor. It mirrored him in this sense. Sarah Palin was a tribalist demagogue who was unintelligent. I think you could argue Trump was a tribalist demagogue who was unintelligent. There were that sort of connecting tissue, but I think Jerry's been a little too hard on himself here. The real culprit, you could argue to some extent, the cult of celebrity,

but probably more importantly, the death and the total breakdown of trust in our institutions, which is merited. It's just that Trump obviously was not the solution. And in fact, the way he governed, you can all see, he was just a continuation of the status quo. He governed like George W. Bush. That's what he was, just a standard establishment Republican. And ultimately, final point, I know I'm going on and on here, but the culture war also helped maintain Trump because he was able to, you know, take on the culture war fight in a way that other Republicans are not able to do it as effectively.

And so that also helped get him the huge devoted following that he had and still has to some extent. So anyway, there you have it. Jerry, don't be so hard on yourself. I really don't think it's your fault. Hey guys, we're excited to partner with upcoming YouTuber James Lee of 5149. He's going to explain culture, politics, anything else that needs explaining, and we're really excited about it. Yep. Here is his latest effort. Let's get to it. Hey there. My name is James Lee. Welcome to another segment of 5149 on breaking points.

So a few weeks ago in my debut segment on breaking points, I posited that the unsavory behaviors exhibited by corporations are the result of choices and decisions made by people. And those people's choices and decisions are heavily influenced by factors such as education, environment, and incentives. Given that most C-suite executives are MBA trained, we together explored some of the, I would call, perverse ideologies I encountered during my business school education to give you some insight as to why otherwise normal, well-meaning people can make such ruthless, destructive decisions in the business world. So today, we're going to apply that same

sort of systemic analysis to examine the underlying factors contributing to the dysfunction of another major institution, one that quite literally governs everyday life in the United States, Congress. Now, I'm sure most of you are aware of the perverse incentives members of Congress are subjected to under our current campaign finance regime as a result of the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court case, which allows wealthy individuals and big business to contribute unlimited sums of money in support of the candidate of their choice via super PACs and other dark money groups, making members of Congress literally beholden to their donors for their political survival. However, this is far from the only reason for America's

congressional dysfunction. There are actually many other issues that fly under the radar without scrutiny, given that members of Congress actually only make up a small percentage of those working on Capitol Hill. What I mean by that is behind every member of Congress in the House of Representatives, there are on average a dozen or so staffers doing much of the heavy lifting behind the scenes. For senators, there could be many more, and this is not to mention congressional committees and special offices like the Speaker of the House, which have their own dedicated staff. So while members of Congress are the ones who ultimately sponsor bills and cast votes on the floor, those actions are all precipitated by work done by staffers whose identities, experiences, and motivations are the vast majority of cases wholly unknown to the public, what I think is a huge blind spot

in most people's understanding of Congress, which brings us to today's segment where we will dive into the work of a congressional staffer as well as the culture, the conditions, the incentives that exist on Capitol Hill, and hopefully together we'll come away with a more nuanced understanding of the dysfunction that plagues Capitol Hill from top to bottom. So I want to begin today's deep dive with this quote.

Washington is to advisors, lawyers, and politicians what Hollywood is to aspiring actors, the place to work hard, prosper, and achieve your dream. And that dream or that journey, of course, starts with getting an internship on Capitol Hill, which could then springboard into a permanent staffer role. The work, from what I hear, of course, is grueling, entails long and crazy hours, but is done with the hope that one day you will form part of a lawmaker's elite inner circle or perhaps even become one. The responsibilities and priorities of staffer roles vary a little in each office, but generally the structure is as you see on the screen. The chief of staff serves as the office number one, managing the policy, communications,

and admin departments while also advising the members on political matters. The policy team researches, drafts, communicates about legislation, and informs the member of Congress on a range of issues before Congress and in committee. The communications team manages media requests, executes a strategy that communicates what the team is doing, and raises awareness about issues important to the members' constituents. The admin team works to keep the office organized and accountable to the members and constituents. So you can actually think of congressional staff as essentially extensions of the members of Congress that they serve. And given the fact that a lot of members are often busy with

things like meetings, fundraisers, congressional staffers really do much of the heavy lifting when it comes to the research and drafting of legislation, meaning that they do actually have substantial legislative influence. Professor Jacob Montgomery of Wash U in St. Louis and Professor Brendan Nyland of Dartmouth summed this up quite well in their academic paper entitled The Effects of Congressional Staff Networks in the U. St. Louis and Professor Brendan Nyland of Dartmouth summed this up quite well in their academic paper entitled The Effects of Congressional Staff Networks in the U.S. House of Representatives. Quote, standard accounts of legislative behavior typically neglect the activities of professional staff who are treated as extensions of the elected officials they serve. However, staff appear to

have substantial independent effects on observed levels of legislator productivity and policy preferences. Specifically, results indicate that members of Congress who exchange important staff members across Congresses are more similar in their legislative effectiveness and voting patterns than we would otherwise expect. Okay, so this means that long-standing congressional staffers can actually influence to a great degree the members of Congress who they work for. And interestingly, if we look back at a historical example, former President Barack Obama's success as a junior senator from Illinois can be

linked to the hiring of Peter Roos, a well-connected and experienced staffer who has worked on Capitol Hill since the 1970s. Referencing the Montgomery and Nyland article once more, quote, when Barack Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate, for instance, he hired Pete Roos, the former chief of staff, to Majority Leader Tom Daschle because of his deep institutional knowledge and connections. Roos played an important role in shaping Obama's legislative career as chief of staff, helping the first-time senator successfully navigate the chamber as a high-profile newcomer and build relationships with influential legislators like Daschle had. I think Montgomery and Nyland's conclusions can plausibly be extended beyond just the senior staff, as every staffer from interns all the

way up to the chief of staff play critical and important roles, including setting the direction of policy preferences that contribute to the ultimate effectiveness or you could say ineffectiveness of the office. So now that we've established a little bit of the importance of congressional staffers and their role in Congress, let's talk a little bit about the office structure and compensation. At the highest level, how it works is that each member of Congress essentially acts as an all powerful GM of a small team of workers. Their only major staffing constraint is the set budget

they are allocated to staff their office each year, kind of like a salary cap in professional sports. Other than that, they have nearly free reign to hire and fire people as they please for as much or little money as they please as well. Taking a look at the salary distribution of congressional staffers based on data from 2020, the majority of staffers make between $30,000 and $70,000 per year, which is not a lot relative, in my opinion, to the level of responsibility they bear. But to give even a bit more context, according to Roll Call, a well-known Capitol Hill news source, 13% of congressional staffers make less than a living wage. In fact, if we zoom in on the subset of DC-based staff assistants, the most

common entry-level position on Capitol Hill with at least one in every office, the data is even more astonishing with 70% of these folks making less than a living wage. And for those making above minimum wage, congressional staffers often make significantly lower salaries than their counterparts in the private sector. Take the role of counsel, which in the vast majority of cases requires a law degree. Compensation has remained fairly flat over the past decade, with the median salary of about $72,000 a year. Now compare that against the average salary of a first-year associate out of law school. According to the NALP, which is the National Association for Law Placement, 2021 Associate Salary Survey report, the overall

median first-year associate base salary as of January 2021 was $165,000 a year. There's just no comparison. Although this isn't unique to Congress, there's just more money to be made in the private sector, a topic which we will discuss later more in this segment. But on top of all of that, the work itself, like I mentioned, can be extremely grueling. Quoting an article from Time magazine, it's no big secret in Washington that Hill staffers are poorly paid and overworked. It's not uncommon to see aides working at the Capitol past midnight or chauffeuring their bosses to the airport before returning to a tiny overcrowded DC apartment. There's also this Instagram account, Dear White Staffers, which kind of functions as a gossip column of sorts sharing anonymous first person accounts of lawmakers treating staff poorly. Some horror stories that I've read include multiple staffers claiming that

they were required to sign out in order to leave their desk to use the restroom. Another claim that their pay was docked to tend to their sick child, despite working ample unpaid overtime. So I think to sum it up, congressional staffers face really long hours, very low pay. And something I think is worth mentioning is that their job security is kind of also dependent on the electoral success of their boss, right? For those working in representatives, working for representatives in competitive districts, that can mean that their job is at major risk of disappearing every two years, a very precarious kind of situation for folks who at the same time hold, let me talk about a ton of legislative responsibility, not only to their bosses, but to the American people.

Now, all of this, I argue, contribute to and explains a lot of the overall malaise and dysfunction of America's top legislative body, a body, if we have to remember, whose members are supposed to represent the needs of their constituents, but in practice falls significantly short of that promise with studies that show the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule near zero statistically non-significant impact on public policy. I think one popular talking point that we've all heard is that working on Capitol Hill is seen as this kind of pathway to a lucrative job in the lobbying industry rather than an actual career in public service. But I think it's not necessarily because folks enter public service. But I think it's not necessarily because

folks enter public service with ulterior motives from the people I've spoken to. It's actually quite the opposite. But unfortunately, it's really hard to be put in a grueling environment with relatively low pay and not be tempted to quote unquote sell out and move to a more secure, higher paying job in lobbying or some other part of the private sector that relies on knowledge of the legislative system. One recent study found that 65% of staffers plan to leave Congress within five years, with many taking their valuable expertise and institutional knowledge with them to K Street lobbying firms. The same study found that between 40 to 45% see the private sector as their next career step. The way I look at it is people don't choose to become

lobbyists. The environment and incentive structure in place makes it the obvious logical choice. And perhaps not surprisingly, this kind of talent turnover coupled with this unhealthy revolving door dynamic between the public and private sector is a bipartisan problem. According to Open Secrets, it's commonplace to find staffers who either came to Capitol Hill after representing private interests or left the member staff for a lobbying position. At the top of the list, the offices of Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer. I think there is a subset of people who follow politics and feel that both parties are equally corrupt. And this is definitely a piece of evidence that bolsters that narrative, right? The data shows that the dysfunction is not partyspecific, but rather institutional. I'll give you another data point according to Issue 1, a cross-partisan political reform group.

Quote, too often this dynamic allows experienced lobbyists to run circles around congressional staff with less than a decade of experience. Currently, the average House staffer in a member office has only been in their position for two and a half years, while the average legislative assistant who advises a member of Congress on key subjects has been in their position for less than one year. Veteran lobbyists are simply more familiar with the ins and outs of how Congress works and the politics within each chamber of Congress than junior staff who are fresh out of college or graduate school. I personally talked to a former congressional staffer who was responsible for eight different policy areas, which in my opinion is seven too many. I think the reality is you have a bunch of young and relatively inexperienced kids fresh out of college working in Congress with way too many things to do and not enough resources to help them do it, going up against these

well-funded special interest lobbying firms. Lee Drutman, a political scientist who has appeared on the Realignment podcast with Sager and Marshall Kozloff, made similar observations in an interview with Colorado Public Radio regarding the outsourcing of legislation to outside lobbyists. Quote, it does not surprise me at all. This is what happens all the time in Congress, that lawmakers have small staffs. There's a lot of things for them to do. And when a lobbyist comes along and says, hey, we've got a great idea for legislation. And by the way, we're happy to draft the bill for you. A staffer who's,

you know, typically overworked, underpaid, and probably in their 20s says, oh, great. Well, please, by all means, help us out. And the lawmaker says, sure. Well, this is something that I can introduce and then take credit for. So great, win-win. Well, at least from their perspective now, I guess the concern is that, well, are these folks actually thinking through these issues? Are they thinking through what's best for their constituents or are they just doing what's easiest? And that is an important point. We continue to see a trend of privatizing public sector goods in the name of efficiency or the notion that businesses can do better than the government. And in this case, sure, we're going to be able to save some money on the salaries of congressional staffers

and we can hire less of them. But the outcome can be nothing but asymmetric in that some interests will be better and more effectively represented than others with public interests being discarded easily in favor of well-funded special interests. And I'll give you an example of this. We all remember the first coronavirus bill that passed in 2020, the $2.2 trillion CARES Act. It was reported in roll call back in April of 2020 that major passenger airlines spent about $9.5 million on lobbying last quarter, coinciding with the passage of the federal aid package in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic. That was $1.6 million more than the same period in 2019, according to an analysis of quarterly lobbying reports.

You can probably guess what the result was, right? In that bill, the CARES Act, the airline industry received $61 billion in federal funding via grants and loans, no strings attached for the most part, because they had the benefit of powerful lobbyists writing custom legislation on their behalf. Now compare that with the Paycheck Protection Program for small businesses, which was woefully underfunded and plagued by bureaucratic issues, making it very difficult for small businesses that needed the help to get that help in a reasonable amount of time. So the effect you see today, no airlines went out of

business and the recovery has been fairly swift with many doing better than they were doing before while small businesses have been decimated in the last 18 to 24 months and many continue to struggle. Now let's move on to another big problem on Capitol Hill, which ironically is representation. Here's the situation we're dealing with. Like we talked about before, working in Congress is seen kind of as this springboard for many greater things to come, but the compensation is extremely low with many young staffers making below minimum wage. So in this environment, who can afford to take these jobs? Well, it's going to be the children of wealthy and affluent families who have the financial privilege to essentially subsidize the low pay offered on

Capitol Hill in exchange for undoubtedly an impressive light item on their resume. If we look at this visual showing which colleges produce the most number of congressional staff in exchange for undoubtedly an impressive light item on their resume. If we look at this visual showing which colleges produce the most number of congressional staff on Capitol Hill, adjusted for the size of the student body, it's evident that the pipeline of young staffers draws from elite liberal arts institutions from the mostly affluent Northeast and DC-based regions. So if you're working class, you basically have no shot. And even if you're lucky enough to make it on Capitol Hill, you've got to decide now at this point,

whether or not it's worth it to play the game, which has like we talked about huge implications on the efficacy of our democracy. Taken all together, I hope you can see why improving conditions for congressional staffers is so important and why the status quo is wholly inadequate. So what can we do? Recently, after pressure from Congresswoman AOC and other progressive members, the House of Representatives increased the member representational allowance, the MRA, which comprises congressional staff budgets, by 21%, giving a huge boost to many staffers' salaries. Now that, of course, is positive, but to give some context, even with that boost, the budget is still lower than what it was back in 2010, adjusted for inflation. And like we talked about before, each member of Congress is kind of like

a GM of a sports team and can choose to allocate and use the funds as they see fit. And there is currently, there's no oversight mechanism in place to make sure that the funding even goes into paying congressional staffers. Another promising development is a scrappy unionization effort bubbling up in recent months. On a Thursday afternoon in February, as many members of Congress were flying back to their districts, 11 Democratic House staffers convened for a secret meeting on Zoom to discuss their plan to unionize both chambers of Congress for the first time in history. The staffers, who represent the as-yet-still-aspirational

Congressional Workers Union, the CWU, have two goals. The first is to get both the House and Senate to pass resolutions granting them legal protections to unionize. The second is to leverage the power unionization would provide to improve their lot. Quote, it's a privilege to work here, says one staffer on the Zoom call, but it shouldn't be a privilege to earn a living wage here. I think that's a sentiment that we can all empathize with. And something kind of interesting and important that I want to point out that I found out during my research is that while federal labor laws protect

most U.S. employees' labor organizing activities, Congress actually exempted itself from its own legislation, which leaves Hill staffers without formal legal protections, meaning, for example, they have no protections against employer retaliation. However, I think the fact that there is a unionization effort is very encouraging. It shows that the staffers are fed up with long hours and subservient wages and are ready to organize formally against their bosses. But I think perhaps more importantly, organizing to save the integrity of our legislative body. Because ultimately, we should view Congress the same as any other enterprise, meaning that you get what you pay for.

If we want a Congress that is capable of serving the American people, we must be willing to invest in that institution by properly and fairly compensating all congressional staff in the same way that special interests lobbying groups are not afraid to invest top dollar in acquiring talent to further the issues that they care about.

I hope you enjoyed this breakdown about the inner workings of Congress and the legionsings of Congress and the legions of underpaid and overworked staffers. If you'd like to know more about this topic and many others, please check out my channel 5149 with James Lee on YouTube, where I release weekly videos relating to the intersection of business politics and society. The link will be in the description below. Of course, subscribe to Breaking Points. And thank you so much for your time today. DNA test proves he is not the father. Now I'm taking the inheritance.

Wait a minute, John. Who's not the father? Well, Sam, luckily, it's your Not the Father Week on the OK Storytime podcast, so we'll find out soon. This author writes, My father-in-law is trying to steal the family fortune worth millions from my son, even though it was promised to us. He's trying to give it to his irresponsible son, but I have DNA proof that could get the money back. Hold up. They could lose their family and millions of dollars?

Yep. Find out how it ends by listening to the OK Storytime podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts. Camp Shane, one of America's longest-running weight loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. But there were some dark truths behind Camp Shane, one of America's longest-running weight-loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. But there were some dark truths behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie.

Enter Camp Shame, an eight-part series examining the rise and fall of Camp Shane and the culture that fueled its decades-long success. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. Have you ever thought about going voiceover?

I'm Hope Woodard, a comedian, creator, and seeker of male validation. I'm also the girl behind voiceover, the movement that exploded in 2024. You might hear that term and think it's about celibacy, but to me, voiceover is about understanding yourself outside of sex and relationships. It's flexible, it's customizable, and it's a personal process. Singleness is not a waiting room. You are actually at the party right now. Let me hear it. Listen to VoiceOver on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an iHeart Podcast.