Here's Where It Gets Interesting - How Hard Can It Be, Boys Do It? Plus, Fighting for Equal Rights After the Civil War, and Answers to Your Questions

Episode Date: November 17, 2025

It’s not something you’ll read about in most history books. Sharon tells the remarkable story of Florence Hall and her Women’s Land Army: the women who took over the farming jobs American men left behind when they went off to fight World War II. These women weren’t just fill-ins, in many cases, the farms they worked on were even more successful than when the men were doing the work.Plus, Sharon is joined again by Akhil Reed Amar, one of the nation’s foremost constitutional scholars, to talk about his newest book, Born Equal, and the battle over who had the right to call themselves American citizens after the Civil War. If you’ve been wanting to learn more about birthright citizenship, this conversation is for you. And Sharon answers your most pressing questions: Will we all be getting $2,000 checks because of President Trump’s tariffs? Could 50 year mortgages be coming?  Can Chuck Schumer be replaced as the Senate Minority Leader? If you’d like to submit a question, head to thepreamble.com/podcast – we’d love to hear from you there. And be sure to read our weekly magazine at ThePreamble.com – it’s free! Join the 350,000 people who still believe understanding is an act of hope. Credits: Host and Executive Producer: Sharon McMahon Supervising Producer: Melanie Buck Parks Audio Producer: Craig Thompson To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The sun was already high and hot over Oregon's Willamette Valley that summer day in 1944. Florence Hall's legs carried her purposefully down the neat rows of trees, the scent of ripening peaches wafting past. Nearby, young women filled baskets and hauled crates. Florence, now in her mid-50s, was there. to check up on the program she built, which would help win the war for the allies. The work will be hard and long, Florence said, but women bring dexterity, speed, and patriotism to the job. Little more than a year earlier, Hall had been handed what seemed like an impossible

assignment. Figure out a way to make up for the million men missing from America. farms. More on that story in a moment, but first, welcome to the preamble podcast. If you're new each week, you'll hear some of the most interesting stories from our weekly magazine, also called The Preamble. This week, we're focused on food and farming, and we have some fascinating articles for you, which I'll talk a little bit more about at the end of this episode. Also, today, I'm speaking with Akeel Reid Amar, who is a very interesting new book called Born Equal. Professor Amar is one of the United States' foremost scholars on the history of the Constitution. And this conversation about the 14th Amendment is one you will want to hear and forward to your friends and family.

Plus, I'll also be answering your questions. Like, will we all be getting $2,000 checks because of President Trump's tariffs? Could 50-year mortgages be coming? And could Chuck Schumer be replaced as the Senate Minority Leader? How does that even happen? I'm Sharon McMahon. And this is the Preamble Podcast. Now, back to our story. The unplanted fields and unharvested crops would be as dangerous an enemy, she was told by officials above her, as the men from foreign lands piloting planes and commandeering ships. Hall was named the chief of the women's land army, and now a year later, she watched as college students, teachers, and clerks who had never stepped foot on a farm before the war,

moved through the trees like they'd been there all along. The women's land army was born of desperation, but in the verdant Willamette Valley, the blue-skied sunshine of California, the muggy Midwest where the air felt too thick to breathe, and the briny breeze off the Atlantic was all the proof needed to silence the naysayers. The nation's victory depended on work being done by women.

Hall knew she wasn't just facing a shortage of workers. What she had on her hands was a shortage of belief. When she set out to recruit women, even newspapers that seemed amenable to the idea, printed skeptical articles. Can women really drive a tractor? They seemed to ask incredulously. You'd have us to believe that women can plow. But if she was to build a women's land army,

Hall didn't have time to waste on nonsense. Men looked for a fight. But Florence Hall answered with infrastructure. Within a few weeks of her appointment in April 1943, she had built a network through the USDA's extension offices that reached nearly every county in the 48 states. Hall opened training camps, distributed pamphlets on tractor safety, and taught new recruits how to milk a cow and thin a fruit tree. A vital war job, posters read, join the Women's Land Army, a healthy, open-air life. By fall, Hall's program had placed nearly half a million women on farms around the country. Newspapers called the workers farmerets.

And really, isn't it so important to have gender diminutives? However, shall we minimize the contributions of women without them? Many farmarets were college students who were earning academic credit. Others were housewives who had never traveled farther than the next town over. They lived in musty school dormitories and on dusty fairgrounds, their days beginning before the rooster crowed and ending after crickets began their nightly symphony. Their pay averaged 40 cents an hour, and while the government sold uniforms for $6, denim overalls, cotton shirts, and a patch stitched over the pocket that said W-L-A-U-S-A, many women simply wore their own perfectly serviceable work clothes. To offset the fact that many housewives were now no longer staying home, more than 3,100 federally-sponsored daycares were established for young children. The tonnage tallied, the acres planted, and the counties saved from crop loss ticked their way into Hall's hands.

With every report, the news got better. By the end of year one, the women's land army had helped yield record quantities, sometimes more than 20% greater than the year prior, of wheat, fruit and vegetables, despite the absence of men. Hallzone reports could barely contain her pride. Without these women, she said, the nation's food supply could not have been maintained. The country could ask for difficult things, and women could do them. In Michigan alone, more than 30,000 women with no prior farm experience had been placed in bean fields, put to work in orchards and had their muscles taxed in dairies.

Michigan State College taught animal husbandry, tractor maintenance, and safe canning techniques. In 1944 alone, more than one million women of the WALA worked a total of 13 million farm days from coast to coast. By 1946, the war was won. The bellies of the Allies were stoked with wholesome American fuel, and the women's land army was one. finding down. County extension offices began returning unused uniforms and closing their training camps. The War Food Administration dissolved, its functions folded back into the USDA. Hall stayed on long enough to supervise the archiving of her files and to send one last circular to the states, thanking them for, quote, a job well done under the most trying conditions.

Then the correspondence stopped. The final annual report was filed in 1947. The files were packed into boxes and sent to the National Archives labeled Extension Service, Women's Land Army. There they remained, unexamined, for decades while Rosie the Riveter took center stage. It wasn't until the late 20th century that historians opened the box. and found Hall's meticulous records inside. Her handwriting covered the pages, notes about wages, yields, and which counties needed more labor still.

Those rediscovered records formed the backbone of a U.S. National Archives exhibit called To the Rescue of the Crops. It was the first time Florence Hall's name had appeared in a national publication in half a century. She had built one of the most successful mobilizations of women in world history, and she had done it without receiving lasting credit. In one of those rediscovered folders filed under Oregon Field Reports, 1944, is a single black and white photograph of Florence Hall and two state-level WLA supervisors. Florence wears a gingham dress and a scarf tied at her neck, and she stands partially covered

by a peach tree. The archivist's description reads simply, Miss Florence L. Hall of Washington, D.C., chief of the Women's Land Army, left, visits the Lafellette Peach Orchard in Marion County, Oregon. Nothing about the millions of acres harvested under her direction. Nothing about the world,

saved from fascists by way of women harvesting fruit. Just a brief caption, beneath an unposed image, a woman, ensuring, without credit, that the work got done. Little Woodhull know that 80 years in the future, more than half of farms in the United States, would have at least one female decision maker. The photograph is nothing, if not the perfect emblem of Florence Hall's legacy. Steady hands in the middle of a war. holding up the harvest, waiting half a century to be seen.

Coming up next, my interview with Akeel Reid Amar, who helps us understand what it actually means to be born equal in the United States. What did it mean to the people who drafted the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments? And what did it mean to people like Harriet Beecher Stowe, Frederick Douglass, and more? It's the matcha or the three ensemble Cephora of the fates that I've been to deniches who energize all the time? Mm, it's the ensemble.

The form of standard and mini, regrouped, whatabend? And the embellage, too beau, who is practically pre to donate? And I know that I'd they'd like the Summer Fridays

and Rare Beauty by Selena Gomez. I'm, I'm just the best ensemble, the Cadowdo of the Feds Cepora. Summer Fridays, Rare Beauty, way, Cifora collection, and other part of Vite. Procurre you, Corma Stomberies,

On link on C4A4 or in magazine What's the world is Von Miller Super Bowl MVP, chicken farmer and now host a free range This is a show where I go off the field And off the script We're talking what's hot in music, film, trending news and everything blowing up your feet

If you love football, you'll feel it home But if you're here for the vibes The internet deep dives The conversation, this is your podcast Join me every Wednesday Follow and listen to Free Range with me Von Miller get your podcast.

So wonderful to see you again. I'm so grateful for your time today. Thanks for being here. Thank you very much for having me back. The pleasure is truly mine. I'm so excited to talk about your new book because it is, I think, exactly what America needs at exactly the right moment. I'm sure born equal took you years to write.

So how did you time it so perfectly? Truthfully, talking about America, our history. our Constitution, our great heroes and heroines. Truthfully, it's always timely. There's almost always something in the headlines. And it's the story that we Americans have in common. And let me actually modify that. It's always timely.

But also, unlike you, some journalists sometimes say, oh, let's not do that now because we have to talk about this case or this controversy or this crisis. but Sharon, yes, a study of America's past, our constitutional tradition, it's always, I think, the perfect time. I totally agree. Because how do we know where we want to go in the future if we don't know where we've been in the past?

And I love that your book doesn't just talk about Abraham Lincoln, who, of course, is absolutely worth studying. And I also love that you brought up a point that I make all the time that people are shocked by when I mention this, which is that Abraham Lincoln during here. his lifetime was progressive. He was absolutely progressive. Of course, we associate the Republican Party today with conservatism. And so it seems shocking to us that are one of our most beloved heroes, perhaps one of the most beloved heroes in American history ever, was progressive at the time. So as, you know, the scholar of scholars, I would love to hear you talk just a little bit more

about that. And then I want to talk more about Harriet Beatrice Stowe and about Elizabeth Cady. I'm so glad that you like the characters that I've tried to profile. I refer to them by their first names because I really feel that they've become friends. Yes. And people in his lifetime called him Abe. His nickname was Honest Abe. And he was proverbially honest. And they didn't call everyone else like Honest Stephen, because Stephen doesn't, wasn't honest.

And Roger Tawny wasn't honest. So I think that no country has ever produced and then picked as its Supreme Leader and he won better than Abe Lincoln. And I'm so delighted, Sharon, that you also found compelling two of my three other main characters, Harriet Beecher Stowe and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. And Frederick Douglass, of course. We can't leave him out. He's my fourth guy. He's my fourth guy. And we can't leave him out.

And the theme of this book is birth equality, born equal. It's about an era in American history where you call them progressives, liberals, egalitarians, reformers, utopians. You could pick dreamers. But these folks are revolutionizing the Constitution, remaking it, and their big idea is that we're all born equal. The book is somewhat novelistic because my characters sometimes come together. Sometimes they pull apart. I'll tell you stories about three times that Frederick Douglass meets Abe Lincoln in the flesh.

And Frederick Douglass has been a very harsh critic of Abe Lincoln early on, but they become very close friends. Or when Harriet Beecher Stowe comes to the White House and Lincoln recognizes her warmly, Harriet Beecher Stowe writes to Frederick Douglass. And she doesn't know Frederick Douglass, but she writes a letter to him introducing herself, calling him my brother. And Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Frederick Douglass are lifelong friends. Frederick Douglass is there at Seneca Falls where Elizabeth Cady Stanton says women should be allowed to vote equally with men. That's 1848.

And oh, America's greatest black man, Frederick Douglass, is right there alongside its first female crusader, Elizabeth Cady Stanton. One of the things that I think is so interesting about the Seneca Falls Convention is that there were quite a few. people who were like, listen, calling for equal voting rights is a bridge too far. Yes. I don't know if you should go there. Maybe that's too much for our first at-bat. And she's like, listen, hold my beer. I'm going for it.

And, of course, proverbially. But I want to hear you talk a little bit more about what it meant to remake the Constitution after the Civil War. I think a lot of Americans just think of the Constitution as, one giant thing and or maybe they think of the Bill of Rights as some separate tacked-on little piece of paper that we can print out. But, you know, to many of us, the idea that the Constitution was radically altered post-Civil War is something that, you know, maybe we didn't learn in school. What did it mean for these multiple amendments to be added to the Constitution

after the Civil War ended? That's the key phrase, multiple amendments. our Constitution is an intergenerational project. The text is not merely the thing drafted in Philadelphia in 1787 and ratified over the ensuing 10 months. That's the original Constitution, but then there's a series of amendments. You mentioned the Bill of Rights that comes on stream early on. And after the Civil War, America realizes we need another batch of amendments. And these amendments are making amends for some of the lapses, some of the flaws, some of the sins, if you will, of the founding fathers, especially the Constitution's compromises with slavery. And after a civil war, the Constitution almost breaks, and it barely holds together thanks

to Abe and thanks to Harriet and thanks to Elizabeth and thanks to Frederick. and three amendments are immediately added after the Civil War, and the theme is birth equality, the reward equal, and a fourth, which will be added a half century later, will complete the birth equality project, basically. So three Civil War amendments in the 1860s, and a 19th Amendment in 1920, and I call these the birth equality amendments.

Let me just remind the audience of what they are. The 13th says, no more slavery in America. It ends slavery everywhere, immediately without a scent of compensation to the slave masters. We're all born equally free. Then the 14th Amendment comes along, says, actually, we're going to go further. If you're born in America, you're not just born free. You're born an equal citizen, whether you're born male or female or black and black white. It wasn't just about racial equality. It was about gender equality. And an early version of

the 14th Amendment had actually been composed by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, saying women are citizens too. Goes all the way back to Seneca Falls. Oh, but as you mentioned, she wanted women voting. The 14th Amendment is only about what are called civil rights as distinct from political rights, like voting and serving on a jury. The 15th Amendment comes along and says, we are born equal black or white when it comes to voting rights. So you shouldn't be discriminated against when it comes to voting because you were born with black skin rather than white skin. So that's a third birth equality amendment.

And those are right after the Civil War. But then you say, well, what about Elizabeth's idea, the Seneca Falls idea of women voting? That doesn't happen for another 50 years. And I explain in the book why it took so long. but eventually there's another big war in America, World War I, and in the aftermath of that, the fourth birth equality amendment is added. The 19th Amendment that says, doesn't matter if you're born male or female, you're equally entitled to be a voter. So a fourth birth equality

amendment about voting rights, this one about gender equality and voting rights. There's been a lot of controversy in the United States lately about what birthright citizenship actually means. And, you know, there's one sort of definition that has stood the test of times since these Civil War amendments were added to the Constitution. You know, 150 years plus we've understood them to mean if you're born on U.S. soil, then you are a citizen. And now there has been a movement to redefine what birthright citizenship actually means, what it means to be under the jurisdiction of the United States, subject to the jurisdiction thereof, what does that actually mean?

And this is a great place where learning our history is an important thing. And I want to hear you tell the audience a little bit more about what the people who were drafting these amendments understood birthright citizenship to mean. What did it mean at the time? You're absolutely right. It says, and here's the language, all persons born or naturalized, in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens. And they thought being a citizen meant you're an equal citizen. It's a birth, equality idea. I trace it all the way back to state constitutions beginning in 1776. The Declaration says all men are created equal. That's July 1776. Immediately afterwards,

in the same building, Independence Hall, Ben Franklin presides over a state constitution convention that says, all men are born equally free and independent. So there's a birth equality project that begins in 1776, and it leads to abolition in the northern states. So the northern states get rid of slavery. People aren't taught that. Sometimes they're taught, oh, Britain is the first place to get rid of slavery. No, it's America.

So there's this idea of birth equality. And the 13th Amendment says we are born equal. but the 14th is going to go further. You're born equal citizen. Now you said, what does this subject to the jurisdiction mean? Well, subject to the jurisdiction meant, for example, that in America, if you were born the child of a foreign diplomat, we're going to treat you as if you were born in a foreign embassy,

and that's a different soil. It's really about the soil on which you're born. on the day that you're born, if you look up, and there's an American flag flying overhead, you're subject to American jurisdiction. Let me tell you a personal story. I'm born in Ann Arbor, Michigan. And the day I'm born, there's an American flag overhead. My parents, the day I'm born actually are not U.S. citizens.

They're here legally. They're doctors. They were invited by the U.S. government to save American lives. But at the time I'm born, they're not U.S. citizens. They're not even permanent resident aliens, what we call reincarnatholds. doesn't matter. The Constitution says, I'm born an American citizen. Although Donald Trump's executive order reports going forward to not recognize the citizenship of babies born to people who are here legally, but who aren't citizens or green card holders, but some people say,

oh, Akeel, they didn't have illegal aliens at the time. And now we do, but that's not true. Now, I didn't write this book with Donald Trump's executive order in mind. I wrote it way before that, but I do tell the story in the book about how honest Abe Lincoln actually did something that everyone in America noticed. So in 1808, this is a history book, in 1808, Congress prohibits the international slave trade. So you can't kidnap people in Africa and bring them over to America. But people did nonetheless. Technically, those slaves in America, African-born slaves are illegal aliens.

They were born in Africa. They were brought here illegally, maybe against their will. But even today, there are sex slaves who are maybe coming in from Thailand or China. So there were so-called illegal aliens in America at the time. And Abe Lincoln, very famously, hanged a slave trader. He didn't like hanging people, but he did because he thought this illegal slave trade was so heinous. So everyone at the time of the 14th Amendment did know that there were illegal aliens in America, but their children were citizens. The children of

slaves were citizens. What would you say to somebody who feels like the Civil War amendments were meant to confer citizenship to the formerly enslaved, to the descendants of the formerly enslaved? It was not meant to confer citizenship to people who, say, for example, sneak into the United States in an undocumented fashion across the southern border, that that's not what the framers of these amendments were envisioning. And we now have laws that have changed how immigration works in the United States. What would you say to somebody who says those laws were meant to apply only to this specific situation and not to everyone moving forward? I would say thank you for your honesty and candor.

We're Americans that talk about it together, that you are raising a real issue. And I would say two things. One, we could amend the Constitution. They amended the Constitution if you think that this situation isn't good. Don't ignore what the Constitution actually honestly says. Follow it honestly. Abe Lincoln doesn't like slavery. He hates slavery, but he says, there's a fugitive slave clause and I'll enforce it honestly.

I'll try to get rid of slavery through an amendment, but until I amend, I'll enforce what the Constitution says honestly, even if I don't love it. But finally, I'd say even short of a constitutional amendment, there are all sorts of things that can be done to penalize those who intentionally break our laws. You can impose all sorts of civil sanctions on them, maybe even criminal sanctions. You can require them to pay compensation. You can do all sorts of things to the parents if they acted wrongly. But you don't impose penalties on the child.

The child is a different person. So I'm grateful that you actually teed up very fairly, I think, what the concern is of many of our fellow Americans. But if they read the book, I'm going to tell them maybe why it might be a mistake to amend the Constitution. Before you do it, at least understand what Abe Lincoln and his allies thought, Harriet Beecher Stowe and Frederick Douglass and others. At least be aware of why they did what they did. Okay, last question. Another controversial topic in the United States, which is that some people have come to, the understanding that the Constitution does not confer due process rights, again located

in these post-Civil War amendments, that the Constitution does not confer due process rights to non-citizens. And I would love to hear your take on that. My view is when you read the Constitution to 14th Amendment, there's a sharp distinction between citizens and persons. So I invite readers just to read Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. they'll see some clauses that are about citizens. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or communities of citizens in the United States. That first sentence talks about who's a citizen.

But when it comes to due process, it's extended to all persons. And they were very clear about distinctions between persons and citizens. So let me give you an example of how everyone gets due process, but what process you do will vary. Let's take someone who is. a citizen and they leave the country and they want to come back. And the government says, no, or even worse, you don't even leave the country. They're deported. Well, wow, you're going to get the Cadillac of due process. You know, you're going to go all the way probably to the Supreme

Court if necessary because you claim American citizenship. Now, at the other end, let's take someone who, just imagine they're from India. I have a lot of relatives in India. They get a visitor's visa to come to the United States at the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi. They'd land in JSK and the people don't want to let them leave the airport. Oh, you're not going to get very much procedure there. You're going to get even less process when you're asking for a visa at the U.S. embassy in India. You're going to get some process, but what process is due will vary.

So everyone, even non-citizens to conclude, is entitled to fair procedures, to do process. But what process is due will vary according to circumstance and not everyone will be able to go to a federal court before a deprivation is imposed. What processes do will vary according to the situation. Right. What you're due in an immigration proceeding varies according to your level of residency in the United States, either citizen or all the way down to you have no legal right to be here. Right. But that's different than somebody who is, for example, being prosecuted for a crime. Yes, because it's one thing to be excluded from the United States. And if you have no right to be here, that's not punishment at all. It's just,

you know, the rest of the world isn't allowed here. And if legally, you're no different from them, that's not punishment. But if you committed a crime and now we're prosecuting you and we're going to put you in an American prison, yes, you're going to get a grand jury, typically, an indictment, and a judge and a jury and proof beyond reasonable doubt and what I call the Cadillac, a fair procedure just so if we want to punish you. But the big point is if you have no legal right to be here, having to go back to your homeland is in legal contemplation. That's not punishment in the same way at all. Right. We don't have two tracks of criminal justice systems where citizens get this amount of due process when it comes to criminal prosecution and non-citizens get this amount.

Just so. Thank you so much for your time. I just love your work so much. And anything that it you write is an immediate ad to cart. So I really loved reading Born Equal, and I really appreciate your time today. Thank you, Chair. Your questions are up next. Today, I'm explaining if we might actually get $2,000 tariff dividend checks from the government, a 50-year mortgages could be a thing and the fallout from eight Democrats voting with Republicans to reopen the government, and whether Chuck Schumer could be replaced as minority leader because of it. Taylor sent in this question. Hey, Sharon, I keep hearing about $2,000 tariff rebate checks.

Are these a real thing? First of all, thanks, Taylor, for your question. President Trump says that the United States is making so much money off the tariffs that he recently imposed that the federal government might begin sending $2,000 checks to people, except for, as he said, high-income people. Here's what he said in the Oval Office last week. We're going to issue a dividend to our middle income people and lower income people of about $2,000, and we're going to use the remaining tariffs to lower our debt. We're going to be lowering our debt, which is a national security thing.

So far, the Trump administration has collected more than $220 billion in tariff revenue, which comes from the newly instated taxes and others that already existed before he took office. In total, the tariffs are estimated to bring in $300 billion. billion a year. According to the committee for a responsible federal budget, which is a nonpartisan nonprofit that studies fiscal policy, this tariff rebate plan would cost $600 billion. Here's how they came up with that number. During the COVID pandemic, the Trump administration gave stimulus payment checks to individuals, including adults and children making $75,000 or less per year or joint filers making $150,000 or less.

So using that same income threshold, according to the committee for a responsible federal budget, it would cost $600 billion to send out these checks. So even if the government pays out every single dime it collects in tariff revenue, it would still have to go into significant debt to send everyone the checks. So will this really happen? Trump has expressed support for it multiple times, including as far back as July 2025. He says the $2,000 payments would be per person, not per household, which makes the numbers even more challenging.

There are additional roadblocks, like the fact that the president cannot just start cutting people checks. In order to appropriate funds, Congress would have to agree to pass a bill that does that. And then there's the matter of the Supreme Court. They just heard a case in which they expressed a pretty substantial amount of skepticism for Trump's recent tariffs. And it's possible that sometime before the end of June, 2026, the Supreme Court could come back and say that the new tariffs are not permitted under the law. And if that's the case, the government would have to refund potentially hundreds of billions of dollars to United States businesses.

Treasury Secretary Scott Besant also said recently that no formal proposals are in the works to actually send out tariff-freebie checks. And he also said that the $2,000 proposal could come in the form of lower. taxes instead of an actual check to spend. Our next question comes from Cynthia, who says, my husband and I are looking to buy a home, but are worried about the high interest rates and monthly payments. I saw something about 50-year mortgages. Is that going to happen? And are they worth considering?

First, some info on why people are asking about this. It's because the Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte said President Trump is working on a plan to introduce a 50-year mortgage option. to home buyers. According to the Wall Street Journal, home prices have gone up 56% since January 2020 for a couple of reasons. One is inflation and the other is low interest rates. Average monthly payments have increased 80% over the last five years. Back in the 1950s post-World War II, it was completely possible for a single-income family to buy a middle-class home. But that is simply no longer the case because wages have not at all kept pace with inflation over the years.

Our purchasing power, the amount that we can buy with the amount of money we have, has decreased significantly. So because home prices are not set by the government, the government can't say, oh, you're not allowed to charge that amount for your house. Home prices are set by what the market will bear. If there's somebody who wants to pay you $482,000 for your run-down two-bedroom, one-bathroom house, then that's what it's going to sell for. But what the government can do is provide things like tax credits for some homebuyers. And what it's currently proposing is a different mortgage program that would spread the payments out over 50 years instead of 15 or 30 years. And what it would thereby do is lower the monthly payments, hopefully to an amount a middle class family could

better afford. Why would the government want to do such a thing? Because it wants to incentivize homeownership. Homeownership is good for communities in a variety of ways. Neighborhoods that have higher percentages of homeowners have lower crime, for example, and they tend to have better schools. There's a variety of positive downstream effects that come from a higher percentage of owner-occupied homes in a neighborhood. So giving people options to help them buy a home for a lower monthly payment might seem like a good idea. Here's what Trump himself said in an interview on Fox News. It's not even a big deal. I mean, you know, you go from 40 to 50 years. And what it means is you pay, you pay something less from 30 that some people had a 40 and then now they have a 50. All it means is you pay less per month. You pay it over a longer period of time. It's not like a big factor. It might help a little bit. But there are some big downsides to a 50 year mortgage. One of the biggest disadvantages is that it's really hard to build equity in a home with a 50 year mortgage on it. You go to sell it.

You don't have that much equity. You're not pocketing that much money because you still owe so much. And unless you're a very young homebuyer, which nowadays is far more difficult because, again, wages have not kept pace with inflation, also because of things like student loans, you are likely never going to pay off that 50-year mortgage. And what else happens? Banks make a lot more money. If you are paying interest for 50 years instead of 30 years, that's. bank is taking in 20 more years worth of interest payments from you. Exactly how much more? Here are some real numbers. On a $450,000 home at a 6.25% interest rate, which is about where

rates are currently hovering, a person would pay almost $550,000 in interest on a 30-year mortgage. If you stretch that out to 50 years, the interest payments would go up to more than one million dollars, just an interest. That's more than double what you paid for the house. And then there's an additional problem. It only brings your monthly payment down a little bit more than $300 a month from about $2,770 a month to $2,450 a month. So that is a huge tradeoff to cut your payment by a few hundred dollars, right? This idea has also been widely panned by people on all sides of the political spectrum. So it remains to be seen

if the federal government actually allows lending institutions to offer this as a product. Meanwhile, Bill Pulte has floated yet another plan, which is the idea of portable mortgages where you can take your mortgage with you when you lose.

That idea is in its infancy, but what I can tell you is that fancy contorted mortgage schemes directly contributed to the 2008 housing bubble, and people shouldn't just think twice they should probably think three times before getting involved in these kinds of mortgage products. And our last question comes from Kayla, who says this. My friends are furious that several Democrats voted to reopen the government after holding out for so long.

It feels like they just gave in. I know some Senate Democrats are also angry, and I've seen some people even saying Chuck Schumer should be replaced because of that. Okay, of course, we're all keenly aware that the United States just went through the longest and perhaps the most painful government shutdown in history. Not only were hundreds of thousands of people either working without pay or furloughed. It happened at a time when other benefits like SNAP were being cut. One of the biggest reasons for the shutdown was that congressional Democrats wanted Congress to extend the pandemic-era subsidies that help people afford private insurance, people who make too much for Medicaid, but not enough to pay for private health insurance. Then, after nearly six weeks, a handful of Democrats in the Senate, voted to end the shutdown. down without any concessions from Republicans about extending the health care help.

Many people are angry with the leadership of Senate Democrats, namely Chuck Schumer, who is the Senate minority leader. They think that the Democrats caved for nothing, and it's time to get a new leader at the helm. Of course, this is not everybody? So to go back to Kayla's question, is it possible that Chuck Schumer could be replaced as leader of the Senate Democrats? And the answer is yes, here is how that could happen. unlike the Speaker of the House, which is voted on by everyone in the House, the roles of the Senate majority and minority leaders are not specified in the Constitution.

The Senate just made these jobs up. They made up the rules about how these people are elected, and they can change these rules any time they want to. Chuck Schumer is the Democratic Conference chair, and in order to oust him, there would need to be a percentage of the Democratic Conference. No Republicans need to be involved in this, who would call for an official meeting. And the percentage of people that actually need to call for this meeting is pretty small. It amounts to about 10 Democrats. They would formally request this. They'd have to attach an agenda. And the agenda would obviously have to include the topic of conversation, which would be replacing Chuck Schumer as the conference chair.

And then Schumer would have three days to schedule this meeting. Once the meeting happens, they would have to tell Senator Schumer, we don't have confidence in your leadership. And then they'd have to nominate somebody to replace him. They'd have to have a vote on whether or not this. new person could replace Senator Schumer. And all they would need is a simple majority of the Democrats. So basically, 24 people to say, we want this person and not you anymore. But let's be realistic, there are plenty of Democrats who would love to see someone more progressive than Chuck Schumer, somebody like Elizabeth Warren, for example. But could they get 24 Democrats in the Senate to get

on board with that? It's not impossible, but it also could be an uphill battle. She's already in the leadership in the Senate. She's a vice chair of the Democratic Conference, as is Virginia Senator Mark Warner. And then there's Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy. He lashed out at his party after they voted to reopen the government. There's no way to defend this. And you are right to be angry about it. I'm angry about it. New Jersey Senator Cory Booker is also being mentioned. Remember his 25-hour filibuster in April that became the longest speech in Senate history? In that speech. He said Democratic voters are tired of Democrats not fighting back. And then there's one other person whose name is being floated, Amy Klobuchar. She has a long history of working with others.

She has spent a lot of time fighting to keep the government shut down until a deal was made on the health care subsidies. She also chairs the steering and policy committee, which is often seen as a pathway to leadership in the Senate. So, will this all happen? Could Chuck Schumer actually be replaced? I'll leave you with this thought. One of the reasons Schumer continues to maintain leadership in the Senate is because he's very good at getting people elected. He's good at helping people retain their seats and picking up as many seats as possible. If you're a Democrat, you like that. I think it's unlikely that Dems would ever get to the point of having this meeting.

If you are Chuck Schumer, you would probably rather negotiate behind the scenes and have a hand in choosing your successor and then step aside on your own terms rather than suffer the embarrassment of being forced out by the party you've elected. for a long time. And then with holidays approaching and a longer recess coming up, it also gives time for flared tempers to cool and makes it even less likely to happen once Congress is back in session from its winter recess. And obviously, I'll keep you updated on what happens. If you'd like to submit a question, head to the preamble.com slash podcast. We'd love to hear from you there. And be sure to read our weekly magazine, the preamble.com. It's free. And here is your personal invitation to joined 350,000 people who still believe understanding is an act of hope. This week, we're looking

at food and farming, and we are covering so much from how the shutdown affected putting food on the table for millions of Americans to what we grow and where we send it. You'd be surprised at how much of our homegrown crops are sent to places like China. And we're also talking about things like the racist laws that make it illegal to forage for food. I'm your host and executive producer Sharon McMahon. If you enjoyed this show, please like, share, and subscribe these things help podcasters out so much. Our supervising producer is Melanie Buck Parks and our audio producer is Craig Thompson. I'll see you again soon.