The Dispatch Podcast - Biden Taps Oil Reserve

Episode Date: April 1, 2022

President Biden announced he would tap our strategic oil reserves in an effort to fight high gas prices. Our hosts are here to discuss the economic realities of that decision. Plus, it was the slap heard around the world: Why can’t we stop talking about it? Sarah, Jonah, David, and Scott finish the show talking about gaffes, cocaine-fueled orgies, and standing in line.   Show Notes: -TMD: “It’s a Petroleum Reserve Release, but Is It Strategic?” -The Dispatch: “The Uncomfortable Truth of Biden’s Gaffe” -G-File: “Madison Cawthorn’s Warped Washington” -Capitolism: “Why You Should (Almost) Never Wait in Line” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to the Dispatch podcast. I'm your host back again. Sarah Isgir, joined by David French, Jonah Goldberg, and Scott Lincecombe this week. We have plenty to discuss tapping into the oil reserves and what that may or may not do to affect inflation. The Will Smith slap. And then we have got some popery. And frankly, our producers have dared us that if we can get through all the potpoury in two hours, we all get around from them. So let's see if we can do it. Let's dive right in. Scott, coming straight to you on the oil reserves, President Biden has said he's going to tap into an unprecedented amount releasing from the strategic petroleum reserve, but it didn't affect markets that much.

We initially saw about a 6% dip. That rebounded about 5% pretty quickly. Big conversation happening of whether this will reduce gas prices at the pump for Americans much, if at all. And long term, whether moving this much out of the oil strategic petroleum reserve that will need to be replaced at some point will actually artificially inflate prices down the line. What say you? Scott Linsicum.

Well, so there's a few problems. Well, first of all, let's, I'll defend Biden in one sense. Tapping the SPR is a classic move by presidents, Republican and Democrat, going back generations. It is just one of those things that, you know, politics gives us, regardless of who's in office. But that, of course, segues into the fact that it's going to be pretty ineffective. It's going to be ineffective for a few reasons. One is just, as I wrote in my newsletter a few weeks ago, oil is traded on global markets. A one million barrel release sounds like a lot. You know, again, people are enumerate.

It's great politics. Wow, a million barrels. The fact is, it's a tiny share of total global oil consumption. So it's basically like throwing a cup of coffee into a swimming pool. You know, might make a little bit of a stain for a second, but it's not going to do much. in the long term. The other big issue is that it is such a big commitment in terms of the SPR itself, that this raises issues about, well, we have to refill the SPR.

And in fact, it's going to take, if you take the full commitment that Biden put forth, it's going to get us right to this point that it's going to trigger like automatic inventory, additions, which of course is taking supply off the market, right? And traders tend to buy when inventories are low. So that could actually put upward pressure because it's such a big commitment in terms of the SPR itself. So small commitment for the global market, big commitment for the SPR, both of those are a problem. The third problem is that this was coupled with some other moves, including a use-it-or-lose-it regulation or order for oil companies in the United States related to their permits, their leases that they have to drill.

Well, this not only is going to tick off oil companies, but it could, again, send a longer-term signal to the markets, markets, of course, even spot markets and oil trade in longer term. it could send a signal that there will be less supply down the road, right? Lower supply, high demand, higher prices. And so the other thing is it's just going to piss off oil companies that the Biden administration needs to increase domestic supplies. And they, of course, also are going to have to compete with those SPR barrels. And to the extent that the release actually does lower prices, oil companies, companies are not going to, you know, they don't have as much of a profit motive.

They, you know, again, we really believe these greedy oil companies are motivated by profits. We actually kind of want prices to stay high, so they make capital investments and drill. So a bunch of problems with this. And then I would just add, I have to add this, it's like in my Cato contract, that Biden isn't doing a few of the things that he could do immediately to help improve oil markets, particularly in the United States. Number one, waive the Jones Act. Just get rid of it. They say they might do this, but I won't get into the weeds too much, but essentially the Jones Act, which requires U.S. ships to transport stuff between U.S. ports, effectively makes shipping oil from, say, the Gulf of

Mexico to, say, a refiner in the Northeast, cost prohibitive because the ships are crazy expensive, hooray protectionism. Well, Biden is a big fan of the Jones Act. And the Jones Act also helps shipping of refined products or at least prohibits shipping of refined products via those same methods. So that is, it has this kind of signaled. They're open to it, but they haven't really done anything. The other thing finally is we have tariffs. We have tariffs on all sorts of stuff that oil companies actually use to drill. So again, if they're motivated by profits, this is raising their cost. The big one being oil country tubular goods, it's basically oil pipes, right? So Biden is not doing the things that might actually help boost supply a little bit.

And he's doing a bunch of stuff that could probably not do much at all. Jonah, from the left perspective, this feels like the moment where there would be political will to make a long-term green energy, clean energy, energy independent plan. that would prevent us from getting into these boom and bust oil cycles. And yet the administration instead doing sort of, as Scott said, the like go-to political move, which is releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, why aren't we hearing more about a long-term energy plan for the United States? Because that crap doesn't work.

I mean, I mean, both sort of politically and economically. I think the smart move, and I've been saying this on this podcast and to, you know, shoeshine guys across the northeast Washington for a long time now. The smart play would have been from a while ago for Biden to announce a big sort of all of the above strategy where he gets to smuggle in some green stuff. You know, so he gives, he gives his critics all of the stuff that they, want in terms of expanding leases, expanding oil production, maybe even, you know, getting rid of the Jones Act, which would like, I cannot, just so listeners who may not know this, but the repeal of the Jones Act is for Scott Linsicum what the Carter-Baker election reform commission of 2005 is for Sarah. It's just, it's, it's the Holy Grail. It's everything. And so. It is the solution to all our problems.

and fair it's true it's true it's not a big flag behind him right now that says f the jones act that you guys can't see uh of course signed into law by the hated woodrow wilson i believe but anyway so um uh and that would have been the big trade off he would again yeah he would have gotten yelled at by all the best people to get yelled at in american politics right now while at the same time appealing to normal people we have heard some of the green stuff from biden i mean i heard them yesterday, explain to people, sort of energy spleen that, you know, if you great unwashed proles would simply buy an electric car, you could save $80 a month on your gas bill. And it's just like telling people who drive F-150s to sell their beloved F-150 and buy a $40,000 to

$90,000 electric car so they can save $80 a month, back of the envelope, math, never mind the fact that they would rather sell one of their kids than sell that truck, it just is not great politics. And I think that these guys, you know, it's my overriding theory. These guys are in a bubble. They listen to, it's David Shoreism all the way. They can't pivot to popularism, which defies like 200 years of political science, because I always thought that we thought politicians like to do what was popular.

David, inflationary pressures. That's really what all of this is about. The Biden administration in advance of the midterms needs to give cover to vulnerable Democrats. And I guess my question to you is, are they trying to give actual cover in terms of reducing prices at this point? Or are they just trying to give messaging cover? It just feels like messaging cover. And that goes back to Scott's initial point about the grand tradition.

of releasing gas, releasing oil from the, from the strategic reserve. This is something that we just see all the time when gas prices get high as people release oil from the reserves. And you feel like they're almost releasing it from the reserves and then saying, I hope that also coincidentally, a lot of things work in the universe together to lower prices so that I can sort of make the correlation argument here. And the reality, I think, is there is some political wisdom here if inflation is the thing that is really worrying Americans, rightly so. I mean, this is eating away and more than eating away increases in wages. People are losing ground in a very tangible way in their household budgets. And if this is one of the first things that's on the minds of

Americans, for him to do something that at least seems to be an effort to deal with it is politically smart. The problem, of course, is all the things that Scott said as to why it's not going to be effective. So, yeah, messaging far more than substance and in a grand tradition of messaging far more than substance when it comes to gas prices. And I'm just upset, though, that Scott stole my oil country tubular products talking point. Or what was the phrase exactly, Scott? OCTG, oil country tubular goods. Oh, okay, oil country tubular goods,

which I had 30 minutes on it, but no more. Is that like a petro surfing thing? I have, you know, it's a great question about where the name came from. I have no idea, but it's a widely traded steel product. And which, of course, has a bunch of tariffs on it, because we're idiots. Let me add one thing on the political side. One of the awesome things about gas prices is that we have signs all over the country every day that remind the vast majority of Americans who, of course, consume that product of the price they were paying and

they're going to pay the next time they fill up. This is amazing. I wish, as a libertarian free trader, we had giant signs of all prices. I wish we had steel price signs. I wish we had steel price signs, right? Everywhere, right? Because politicians, of course, hate prices, at least when they're high, because prices are signals. They are messages. And they are messages as to a lot of policies. And so that is why, as Jonah said, and as you mentioned, that environmentalists should be cheering high gas prices, right? They make the transition to EVs or renewable energy more economically viable, right? The problem is they are politically disastrous, particularly in a time of high inflation. So they're stuck, and they thus are scrambling around doing what

politicians do, which is, you know, signing a bunch of things that won't matter and avoiding the politically sensitive stuff that might actually matter. Yeah, I mean, one way to think about it is like politicians are like teenagers, where they always say they'll do the easy, fun part now, but they promise they'll do the hard, difficult part later. And so whether it's the Keynesians who always said, well, you know, during robust times, we'll have higher taxes or it's to say, or have surpluses or the modern monetary theorists who say, oh, it's no problem with inflation because if economy runs too hot, we'll just soak it up with taxes or with the gas taxes. Or, you know, like, they want high prices when the prices, you know, it's always like the hard

part, the hard political part will deal with later. And this is just another example. And so one last thing on note. So 20 plus years ago, there was actually a trade case to put at any dumping case to put tariffs on imported oil. This was before we were fracking, right? Now, these cases are always initiated. They're always on autopilot. If you read my newsletter, we talked about these dumping cases. They're a bit of a farce. It was the only case in decades that wasn't initiated because, of course, it would have dramatic effects on oil prices and on gas prices. And that gives you, I think, an idea of the political potency of this issue and of, again, how these price signals resonate so much for the average vote. All right. And with that, we are going to move on to the slap, but not, maybe not in a normal way, because we weren't going to talk about this. And then in the green room, we actually ended up having a really interesting conversation that was only maybe a little bit about the slap and more about American culture, which is really Jonah's specialty. So there's this poll that comes out. And while I am, you know, generally skeptical of the poll, there's some trends in the poll that were interesting. Best predictors of whether you thought Chris Rock was more wrong or Will Smith was more wrong. Income, if you make under $25,000,

you definitely thought that Chris Rock was more wrong for making fun of Will Smith's wife than will Smith was for hitting Chris Rock. On the flip side, income over $150,000, you definitely thought Will Smith was wrong for hitting Chris Rock. Same trend in education. Less than a high school education, Will Smith is right. Advanced degree, all of a sudden, definitely Chris Rock is right. interestingly, whether you voted for Biden or Trump made no statistical difference at all. No partisan distinction. It was education and it was income, although I will say, and this is a small number problem in the poll probably, but there was a huge gap if you didn't vote for either Biden or Trump.

Not if you didn't vote at all. That was the same. So Republican, Democrat, or you just don't vote? No real difference. But if you voted for a third party candidate, you really, really, really thought that Chris Rock was a bad guy for telling that joke, which is, again, probably just a low number problem in the poll where they, you know, only had a few people who had voted third party. Yes, Jonah. I said one one mythological or one definitional problem. Question.

You say the way you frame it is if you were this, you thought Will Smith was right. But if you thought, if you're this, you thought Chris Rock was right. Can't you think Chris Rock may have been wrong, but Will Smith was wronger, right? Like two wrongs don't justify, don't make a right. Which side was more wrong? Okay. More wrong. Chris Rock or Will Smith.

And again, education, less education, you thought that Chris Rock was more wrong, more education, you thought Will Smith was more wrong. Less income, same exact thing. So Jonah, culturally, what does this say about the United States? See, now, listeners can't see Sarah Smile, which I have become an expert in reading Sarah Smiles. And what she's really smiling at is she thinks I'm the one who's going to say things that will get me into trouble by interpreting this in a way that she didn't.

She just literally fell out of her chair because I called it. She has, no, she has a stand-up desk, and she fell down. And then tried to stand up and hit her head on the desk. I'm okay. I've never seen anything like it. but like there's no way she was going to compliment me like that if it wasn't a way to sort of get me confident enough to say something that would get me into trouble so leading the witness i think all three of you lawyers might call it i would like to state for the record that

i now have a head injury for the rest of this podcast i have a concussion it's a little embarrassing to go to the er with a podcast injury yeah um yeah but now your answer needs to be really good, Jonah. Yeah, I don't know that it's really good. I mean, I was talking about this yesterday on this forthcoming Saturday episode of The Remnant, where I tried to make it an analogy to the Al Jusk, Whitaker Chambers case and decided I better just abandon analogy. But it is a little bit like the white and gold, blue and black dress thing, where everyone is equally qualified to have an opinion, right? So, like, one of these things where you don't have to defer to people, you know, you know, it's not like the Jones Act where we're all going to be like,

all right, go, Scott, you know, whatever. Yes, exactly. I do think that one of the divides, I don't want to do it in terms of class per se, but if you work with words or images, right, or you manipulate speech in some way, you are invested in the safety of being able to do those things and you think that those are legitimate things to be able to do

and I mean that broadly not just journalists but like education I mean there's just the you know basically everybody with a grad degree is someone who to some extent or another is in the word business and if you're someone who is on the lower

end of the socioeconomic spectrum you're not that business you're the there are rules of civil society that are much more traditional let's shall we say that obtain and apply in in all sorts of situations um i do not that i don't want other people to have the same opportunity to get into trouble uh but i do think of all the possible scenarios that we had we kind of lucked out like if this had been a white guy slapping a black guy or a black guy slap and a white guy or also you can do all sorts of identity politics sort of mix and match you know and having two super famous African American beloved African American guys in this scenario is probably better than a lot of other scenarios in terms of

the arguments that it's generated. It what makes the cultural poll so interesting because as you said everyone gets to have an opinion and there's none of the other stuff really building. into it. So Scott, for instance, I know that David's going to talk about masculinity culture. So we're going to leave masculinity culture to him. So instead for you, my question is something about whether, in fact, this is a correlation, not causation, and it goes the other direction such that, for instance, for believing that you

should put off your feelings and bury them is actually a predictor of whether you'll finish college. Not that whether you finished college predicts whether you think that you should bury your feelings. I mean, I do think there is some of that. And this is my completely unfounded opinion. But yeah, look, you know, there is a to finish college to become, as Jonah described, what we call a knowledge worker. You know, you work with fake, intangible things for a living, but to get a grad degree to just simply budget well and, you know, have your finances straight. A lot of these things imply a certain amount of self-restraint, a certain amount of

long-term thinking about the potential cost implications of your immediate actions. And thus, that might explain why some are on the, or, or, at least think that what Will Smith did was really wrong, that you don't go out smacking people. Now, I would, the other thing that I might be in this is, look, comedy has a long and storied tradition of being extremely insulting. And again, kind of knowledge worker folks are really, I think probably more deep into that space. And I think there might be a little of that too, that you just simply expect. Well, comedians have long, long been offensive. Some of my favorite comedians are extremely offensive. And you just, it's, you should just expect that.

Interesting, by the way, because now there's a lot of new versions of the marshmallow test, which is basically a version of what you're describing, Scott, that the marshmallow test predicts whether you would finish college or get an advanced degree. And maybe the marshmallow test also predicts whether when a guy says something you don't like, you hit him or you think, if I hit him, then all this other stuff will happen. Why don't I not hit him? And I'll just make sure he's driving my car later on in life or something. Yeah. That was the Northwestern, you know, chant at the football games is the only private school in the Big Ten. Since we lost all of our games, usually, it was, that's all right. That's okay. You'll be driving our kids someday.

Charming, though it was. But there's now, yeah, very endearing. Everyone loves that. And very endearing. Northwestern was the favorite in the big time. But the marshmallow test itself has come under a lot of criticism that maybe it's not predictive at all as they sort of continue to run this. I'm curious about how that will work out over the next decade or so and what the accepted wisdom will be about that. I think that the more interesting test for kids is the ash line test of conformity.

if everyone ahead of you says that line A is the same length as, you know, line, you know, this other line. But in fact, it's very obvious that it's not. Will you say the same thing that everyone said before you to try to conform? Or will you say the thing that is obvious on the piece of paper? That's the test that Nate will be getting every year for the rest of his life. All right, David, now it's the take that everyone's been waiting for. Gender and masculinity in America in 2022. to David French, go.

Well, it's not exactly that. It's more shame honor culture, Sarah. But this wasn't North versus South. This was education and income. So I think your Mason-Dixon-Lyme, shame, honor culture isn't quite the same. No. If you know where education and income are, where there are disparities in education and income, it actually matches and tracks up pretty well.

You know, the South has traditionally been one of the less educated regions of the United States, one of the lower income regions of the United States. And this has been true forever. Now it's starting to change in some of the, you know, hipster urban areas, you know, like Nashville, where you now have to, they don't even allow you to live in Nashville unless you have a tattoo sleeve. But the reality is a lot of parts of America that are more rural that are, that do have these education and income, do have a whole heck of a lot of shame honor culture to them. I mean, this is the world I grew up in. This is the world Nancy grew up in. And it's funny because, Nancy, my wife, it's funny because both of us had immediately the

same instinct. It just without even thinking, it was, heck, yeah, Chris Rock deserved that. And then it was like, pause, pause, pause, wait, hold on, different higher moral functions engage. Wait a minute. No, words aren't violence. You don't hit people. But it was fascinating to me that we both instinctively went to what this is, this is what happens when you go after a man's wife like that in public. You just don't do that. This is what happens. And it was interesting, even amongst sort of my friends, all of them or the large majority of them sort of disproportionately educated, disproportionately upper middle class.

All of us from the South went there. A lot of us went right there quickly and then backed off from it. And so I think that, you know, there's something there that's just instinctively in someone who's grown up in that culture and been a part of that culture, that it just, you react like that. Okay. So I'm going to call a little BS on this. I mean, yeah, absolutely. In shame, honor cultures, this feeling is going to feel a little more at the surface than

with other people, but as a de-rassinated demi-Jew from the upper west side of Manhattan, let me tell you, I am perfectly in touch with those feelings, right? I think that those feelings are present, you know, except for these ENTJ libertarian types who are just sort of like one step off of Android, most normal men. I literally no emotional reaction to anything, really. And then I analyze the economic impact of, by the way, Chris Rock is getting, he's sold out everywhere now. So really impressive for him. Sorry, sorry, go ahead. So, yeah, no, no. I think these things are natural to the male psyche. They're natural to some

extent to the humans, just call it the human psyche if you want. But I mean, I think there are sex differences in the brain and all this kind of stuff. And, but I think the, you know, if we're talking about, let's put it this way, if we're talking about, if we're talking about the audiences, the polling response, I think you have a good point, right? That this is what's going on here. But what is going on is that also is that, which is sort of what I wanted to get into

with the, the, the, his chambers thing was that we are projecting our stuff onto this event, right? And the, these are two multi-millionaires, right? on stage, like the fourth biggest movie star of the last 20 years, fifth biggest movie star of the last 20 years in the, or 30 years, and, you know, and like the two of the five most famous black men in the world, right? And give or take. And I think that one of the problems we get into,

I mean, there's a big thing in my book is that when you follow events like their entertainment, you can start making these moral distinctions. But if the exact same sort of thing happened in a boardroom or in a Starbucks, it would be very clear that, you know, it would be wrong, right? And that it would be, it would be, it would feel wrong quicker. That said, I think the, the driving thing about Will Smith, who as far as I know has the same educational attainment and is just as much a knowledge worker or a non-knowledge worker as Chris Rock is, is that Chris Rock is that Chris, that, that, that Will Smith has been surrounded by people for a very long time whose job it is not to say no to him about anything. And so like for normal people who have a more realistic cost benefit analysis about the costs of doing something stupid, if you've been surrounded by an entourage that's going out of its way at every moment to make life easier for you and to grade things on a curve based upon your wants and desires, your natural inhibitions about cost-benefit analysis are just going to be out of whack. And I think that's what happened

with Will Smith. And then we project on this all sorts of things from our own lives. My entourage tells me that it's totally acceptable that I just bashed my head on the corner of my own desk and that that's a normal thing to do. Sarah, was there a breakdown in age? Because that's the other thing I'd be interested to see. Because, you know, the kids, days think speech is violence. Right. So I'd be really interesting. Totally reflected. 18 to 34 thought that Chris Rock was wrong by a margin of about 15 points. And if you're over 65, it was about tied. And basically, yeah, old people roughly tied. It's that 18 to 34 demographic. I wish they'd broken up the 18 to 34 a little more because I think that's actually a pretty large group

that would be worth dividing into two. And they all, these did, those kids. kids, that's all children these days. How come no one's worried about the sexism implicit in this? I mean, like, first of all, I think Jada Pinkett Smith could kick Chris Rock's ass on her own. And second of all, like, all these 18 to 34 year olds think that it's somehow not toxic masculinity for a dude. Isn't that amazing? It's like, defend the honor. It's the definition of toxic masculinity.

It really is. Yeah. Well, no, it's just a hierarchy. Speech is violence is more important than toxic masculinity. I mean, you'll just have to rank these things. Fair, fair. As I often do. You know, and that, you know, on the other, on the point about the, the education and the

income, you know, you're just talking about also a group of people who are, every, by all historical standards are winning, right? This is, they have a direct vested interest in order, in peace, and stability, because this is, you know, things are good, things are good. And, you know, seeing an act of violence directed against somebody for words is, as Scott was saying, it's much more, I think, intensely threatening to a sense that all is well, all as well. We let's, let's not, but the interesting thing, though, is that I think that this, this is also a same group disproportionately educated, disproportionately well off, that is disproportionately culture warring.

This is the very online group, right? These are the people who are the political hobbyists from the more in common Hidden Tribe Survey who are polarizing us. That's what sort of fascinating about the education side is that, yeah, it's including 18-year-olds, fair enough. But for the most part, this 18 to 34 group is the group that has the highest attainment

of education percentage-wise of any generation in the country. Not long ago, I saw someone go through a sudden loss, and it was a stark reminder of how quickly life can change and why protecting the people you love is so important. Knowing you can take steps to help protect your loved ones and give them that extra layer of security brings real peace of mind. The truth is the consequences of not having life insurance can be serious. That kind of financial strain on top of everything else is why life insurance indeed matters. Ethos is an online

platform that makes getting life insurance fast and easy to protect your family's future in minutes, not months. Ethos keeps it simple. It's 100% online, no medical exam, just a few health questions. You can get a quote in as little as 10 minutes, same-day coverage, and policies starting at about two bucks a day, build monthly, with options up to $3 million in coverage. With a 4.8 out of five-star rating on trust pilot and thousands of families already applying through Ethos, it builds trust. Protect your family with life insurance from ethos. Get your free quote at ethos.com slash dispatch. That's E-T-H-O-S dot com slash dispatch. Application times may vary, rates may vary.

Okay, we've got popery to get to, guys. We got to go. So the rules for potpourri are that not everyone has to talk if they don't want to. And, you know, keep it tight. We put it in potpourri for a reason, right? No PhD thesis allowed. All right, first. That was targeting me.

It was fine. It was. Thank you. It was directly. I felt it. That was violence. I've already hit myself, Scott. There's no need. Okay. First up, Biden gaffs. Do they matter anymore? David, is this one to you? I'm happy to, I'm happy to start with it. I mean, the gaff where he blurts out, in essence, regime changes. Is it really, really blurting it out as a policy or more as a prayer? Like, it was blurting out regime change. Is that a gaffe? Yeah, it's a gaffe. You just don't do that. But does it matter? Does it matter?

I do believe that it matters. I do believe that it matters. I do believe that it matters because president's words matter. President's self-discipline matters. And when president says something that is not thought through and perhaps upon reflection doesn't really mean on the highest stakes matter in the entire world right now. I think, you know, it maybe it doesn't affect Vladimir Putin's thinking, but the very notion that our president lacks the self-discipline to communicate precisely at a critical moment is troubling to me. Does it mean that it's adjusting our policies?

No, but it's troubling. Scott, Pollyanna says that presidents should always be like Lincoln and Josiah Bartlett wrapped into one. Pollyanna. I think the, well, first of all, I kind of wish Gaffs didn't matter. But the fact is that the president is as head of state speaks for the nation. And there's all sorts of geopolitical, uh, ramifications to these statements. So, um, I think domestic politics wise, gaffs don't matter anymore.

The problem is I think they still do matter. abroad so everybody's wrong um in all sorts of profound ways uh but i'll keep it succinct uh one of the best pieces of management advice i ever got is you don't punish people for mistakes you punish people for patterns right because everybody makes mistakes this wasn't one gaff in poland he had three significant gas he told american troops they were going to go fight in ukraine he said we're going to respond to a chemical open attack with ukraine on ukraine in kind problematic and he called And he said that they're going to be regime change. You go back and he's got an enormous number of gaffs.

Sometimes the White House walks them back. Sometimes the White House changes its policy to fit the gaff. Neither of those are good. Yeah. And, you know, I've been saying for a while, like, I, I, throughout the Trump years, I would say to people, to my conservative friends, what is it that the next Democratic president can do that you won't be a hypocrite for criticizing. And I did not have on my list saying absolutely bonkers things that in an opportune moments

moments like this. But Biden is doing, you know, there's a category difference because most of them come from a good place. But, you know, his gaffs are bad too. And some of them come from a very bad place like Jim Crow on steroids and all that kind of stuff. And so I think politically it matters a great deal because it undermines the sense of competence, which is the thing that got him elected. It makes him seem like he's not in charge of his own mouth, never mind his own administration's policies. And diplomatically, it's not good, Bob. Sure. But next topic is Ukraine. And the policy feels set in Ukraine. We now, it's all been sorted out. It's a, you know, months, six weeks in. And in that sense, nobody really is paying that much attention.

what Joe Biden says because we know where America is, we know where Europe is, we know where Russia is at this point. And so, yeah, what will change even a gaffe or something else in terms of Ukraine, David? Well, because it is a gaffe and because we can label it a gaffe and we know that it's a gaffe, we know that it's not changing as a general rule, not going to change policy, although Jonas says that has said accurately that sometimes the White House tries to strain to match policy to GAF without really changing policy in a concrete way? The war criminal thing was basically them changing their position to match Biden's mouth. But anyway, go on.

Yeah, but we're not doing anything specific in response to the war criminal statement. But I think if you're talking about, I just keep going back to this idea that it's not too much to ask a president of the United States to be disciplined in thinking and speech at the high stakes, one of the highest stakes moments in recent history, I'm more disciplined on a podcast in my speech than the president of the United States is when talking about weapons of mass destruction. I mean, that's remarkable to me that we are in this position. And it's a symbol of sort of, you know, and people are lament, lament, well, these are the choices they, the parties gave us, you know, Biden, Trump, they, well, no, it's the choices that millions

upon millions of Americans gave us through the electoral process. But yeah, Ukraine policy seems set. American attitudes towards Russia and Ukraine seem set. All of them seem set in a good direction. We are pouring weapons into Ukraine without getting involved in the conflict in Ukraine. We are punishing Russia with sanctions without getting involved in the conflict. and Americans overwhelmingly Republican and Democrat recognize Russia as the aggressor and support Ukraine in this war. All of that seems set. All of that scene is very good. But the president's words still matter. And they can be used by our opponents, our opponents who are not as steeped in American policy and don't know how set we are. I feel like David doesn't really

understand Pope Marie. So the next topic that y'all didn't want to talk about were budgets. Everyone agreed that they think the announcement of the presidential budget is stupid and not worthy to talk about on this podcast. Scott Linsacombe, why? Because nothing, well, especially when you have a president with a low approval rating, nothing in those budgets actually gets done. The math is suspect. They're basically now political messaging tools, right? And that is interesting that they're political messaging tools. but in terms of actual policy, it really is, it's basically worthless. It's essentially a punching bag for folks on the opposing party.

Look at this math error they made. Look at this dumb policy they proposed. And then again, on the other side, it's a way for the president to simply say, I'm championing your cause or I hate your enemies, that kind of stuff. But in terms of actually getting stuff done, they're basically worthless. I meant to look up when the last time a president's budget wasn't DOA. I certainly can't remember a time, but that doesn't mean like there wasn't one year in the Clinton administration where they said, oh, we'll actually take this up and look at it for five minutes before we throw it away. I just don't know.

But I didn't want to get this in here because I think this is like, I agree entirely with Scott about the biescery of presidential budgets. but I did not know this until this morning when I was trying to do some of my due diligence. The budget document that they, the president's budget for fiscal year 2023, which, you know, proposes $2.5 trillion in net taxes, which mostly come out of businesses and high income households and claims to reduce the deficit by $1 trillion. That sounds like specific stuff. Alex Brill pointed out, um, calling the American Enterprise Institute, that there's this note in the preamble to the Treasury Department's report, which says, quote,

the revenue proposals are estimated relative to a baseline that incorporates all revenue provisions of Title VIII of H.R. 5376 as passed by the House of Representatives on November 19, 2021. In other words, this budget assumes that build back better passed, which is like so, I mean, I mean, like, why not assume that unicorns taste like chicken? I mean, it's just like, it's totally irrelevant to like what any conversation you would want to have about the budget because it's depended upon something that happened in a parallel universe. Okay.

Next topic is cocaine orgies. So earlier this week, a pro or con, David, pro or con. Obviously, I am pro. A freshman congressman from North Carolina. Carolina said that, you know, D.C. was this degenerate place and that he had been invited by 60, 70-year-old members that he looked up to, to sexual interactions where people were doing key bumps of cocaine and involved in orgies. David, in the wake of January 6th, you had people voting not to certify the election. You had people fist bumping.

you know, protesters, all sorts of weird stuff. Fast forward, you have members of Congress attending white nationalist events and speaking at them. And everything in between, by the way, all manner of lesser sin, greater sin, etc. But what seems to have really gotten the GOP caucus riled up is the accusation that they attend cocaine orgies with freshman congressman from North Carolina, I guess, like, so Kevin McCarthy then, you know, as the minority leader takes young Mr. Cawthorne aside and gives him a stern talking to, says he's lost

his trust. He's not mad. He's just disappointed. And, you know, Tom Tillis endorses a primary opponent, the senator from the state. Yeah. Why this, David? What? What? May I be bleak for a moment. Why this? Because they heard from the base on this, and the base was wondering if they were having cocaine orgies. And why do they not say anything about Marjorie Taylor Green? Because they're not hearing from the base, or if they take on Marjorie Taylor Green, they're going to hear from the base negatively. Why were so many people changing their opinions or changing course after initially robustly condemning January 6th and wanting to take decisive? action. They heard from the base. And the base doesn't want them in cocaine orgies. And the base wants

them to defend January 6th, or at least put it in the rearview mirror. And the base doesn't care about Marjorie Taylor Green going to a white nationalist convention. And it's my unified theory of hearing from the base. So, Scott, I'm down with the kids, right? And I know what a bump of cocaine means. But I'll note that I actually don't know what a key bump. of cocaine means, which was the precise term that this freshman congressman used in the conversation, which felt tradecraft, if you will, to borrow a phrase. And you're a libertarian. So I'm just curious if you can let us into some of that tradecraft from your key bump cocaine experience. No, I'm the lamest libertarian there is. I have no idea what that is. My history of drug use is minimal.

You know, college was college. But other than that, I wasn't a big fan. I drink a glass of wine, and that's about as far as I go. So, look, I'm sorry. You can take away my libertarian card, but I really have nothing on this. But I will say, I understand why members were so upset because everybody knows you don't invite the freshmen to the orgies. Right. And that's really, I mean, obvious protocol mistake, and I can see why they were upset.

I don't know. If you're a 60 or 70-year-old, you know, congressman, you might want some of the 25-year-olds at the orgy, but that's just an aesthetic thing. Utility, too, Jonah. One more. We have two more popery topics. Next popery topic is the seven-hour gap that the select committee investigating January 6th said that they had

when they asked for the president's phone calls from January 6th. They said that from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m., the records that they got showed no phone calls that were made by the president. Conversations about burner phones. then ensued. And the president, then former President Trump, putting out a statement that he doesn't even know what the term burner phone is. And then reporters digging up that in the lawsuit against

his niece, that just two years ago, the lawsuit used the term burner phones. So aha, and off we went down to burner phone land. Except today, it turns out that they only requested the records from the White House switchboard, meaning the seven hour gap is only in cost. that were placed by a White House operator. They didn't request any landlines, and they didn't request any cell phone data. So while there may be a seven-hour gap and all of that, we know that the president talked to people on White House landlines because Mike Lee told us so, because we have the number that they used to call Mike Lee's phone.

So this was always a weird seven-hour gap to me, and now we know the answer. It's only the switchboard. Jonah, I feel like this is an outrage, and you feel like it's more somewhere in between. Yeah. Well, look, let me back up and say, I think there have been times when the January 6th committee is its own worst enemy. That if they, like, sometimes they seem like they have learned nothing from the Mueller report. And they leak stuff that is like the boiled frog thing where it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's it's, it's, it's, it's. or or prince are dread pirate roberts with his immunity to iocaine powder it is building up an

immunity to anything that is going to be left to be shocking in there it's particularly bad when they kind of muddle the storyline like they they did here that said my understanding from from the stuff i followed from some of the books about the trump administration from you know word on the street as i you know i dropped benjamin's on my snitches around town is that um uh uh Trump has a well-honed practice from his days of being sort of mob-envious, borrowing other people's phones and using them so that there's no provable record. He made a phone call. And so I did not study these initial reports.

It did seem like some of the comparisons to Watergate with the gap on the tapes thing seemed overblown. But this is one of the problems that we have in the world that Trump helped create is that All theories about his bad behavior are at least superficially plausible, but sometimes because they're superficially, superficially plausible, the media covers them as if they're fact when they turn out not to be true. And then that is a massive gift to Trump because he can say, see, you guys made this thing up. And it feels like this is somewhere in there, that the committee, which is leaking way too

much, got the press spun up on a storyline, that on closer inspection is a little more complicated. David? Yeah, this was a story that from the beginning, I kind of, I just wanted to wait. I just wanted to wait on it before I wait in. But it does tell me, sort of this reaction to it, it's the same pattern that we've had over and over and over again. And to pick up on something Jonah said, it's like, Because we see him say things that are so far beyond the pale, beyond what any president has ever said publicly, or we've already had revelations, like the disclosure of the recording of the phone call with this Georgia Secretary of State that are really profoundly bad, it's tempting to say, well, then what else more horrible is behind the curtain?

And so you're always saying, well, there's got to be something more horrible behind the curtain. And so you're really tempted to believe it's there. But what if the horribleness is all in front of the curtain? What if we know broadly what has happened? But people are in... That's largely my argument of it why the orgy stuff can't be true. Because there's just the idea that that can't be behind the curtain for all sorts of reasons. Anyway, go out.

I apologize. Right, right, right. And I think that there's a lot of stuff that's terrible before the curtain. And what's so frustrating to people is it's out. there. It's obvious. It's seen. It's known. And yet still millions of Americans still say they want Donald Trump to be president again in 2024. So there's this hunt for what's the thing? What's the thing we're going to find that's going to finally break the spell and end the obsession? And we have to just sort of reach this conclusion that there isn't going to be a thing and that it's really impairing

the credibility of the media that it seemed to be very eager to jump towards the idea that there's going to be a thing. All right. Last popery topic. And Scott, it's all yours. You know what it is. And fans of Scott Lensacombe around the country have been waiting for this moment. It's on the economic efficiency or lack thereof of lines. Should you or should you not queue up, Scott? Correct. So this is a classic lesson in opportunity cost. In general, you really shouldn't wait in. any line at any place for more than five minutes unless what you're waiting for is extremely valuable or you're stuck in the airport and like for coffee and have have no choice and it's a necessity. And the reason for that is that your time is far more valuable than whatever you are

waiting for. The classic case being the gas line at Costco, which would take 20 minutes to save you three bucks. And the economics literature shows quite plainly that your work time and your free time are worth far more than that. So in general, if you walk in the grocery store, you pick up three items, you go to the front, you see there's one register open and there's an old lady in the front paying with a check. You drop that stuff and you walk out because your time. No, you are worth more than that. But wait, Scott, because I know you're talking to my exact experience on Monday, there is then the cost of going to another grocery store, picking up those three items again and waiting in some line, even if it's not as long a line.

So aren't I really considering the delta of the weight? Of course you are. And then so the Costco line provides the easy example because there were gas stations right across the street. And so it was literally a difference of a very easy calculation. But look, we're all adults here. We can make cost value, cost benefit calculations that involve a little more work. But we all have calculators on our phones, and I recommend that we all use them. You should basically be sitting there doing this type of math every day in your lives because, quite frankly, your guys are leaving a lot of money on the table when you stand in those lines or wait in traffic or do all those other horrible things that in our lives today we don't need to do.

See, and I think that if you, I think people overestimate how long they wait in those lines and underestimate how long it takes to drive to another place. So let's say that line were seven minutes long. That would feel like an outrageous amount of time at the grocery store to wait in line, by the way. It would feel interminable. But seven minutes would be less than the amount of time it would take me to drive to another grocery store and pick up the three items again by a lot. It would clearly take more than seven minutes. Not to mention, that grocery store will have a line of, let's say, one to two minutes. And, of course, the brisket needs orange juice in the morning. not the good kind either. He wants the cheap kind. So it's very important that I go get the cheap

kind of orange juice for the baby. So you're just, look, we're talking about the general theory. There are always exceptions. If you need an item, of course, that's the case. However, I got to say, your grocery store line moving in seven minutes, that's crazy talk. Let's even leave aside the fact that time spent waiting is actually longer than time spent doing anything else. Um, so, uh, you know, in general, my grocery store lines are a lot longer than, than seven, uh, which by the way, it's still worth like $5. Can I just say I like the image. Um, if I assume everyone here has seen heat and where Robert De Niro's whole thing is, is like if, if, if, if you think you're about to get busted, just drop everything and go. And so I like the image of like being at the supermarket, seeing the line and being and acting as if the FBI has spotted you. and just dropping everything and walking out the door. I think that's a really cool.

I kid you not. I have done that at least a dozen times. Just literally just, I mean, I don't leave the basket in the middle of the floor, but I do just set it down in front and leave. So this is actually not at all about grocery stores, as many of you listening, I'm sure I can guess. This is about the fact that Scott and his family are headed to Disney World soon, I believe, and that this is Scott preaching through the podcast to his wife about their

philosophy as they head into Disney World, correct? Correct. Yes. No amount of money is too much, too great to avoid those terrible, terrible lines. Well, the question I have, though, Scott, is putting aside the line, the line issue, what are you going to do to wage moral war against Disney when you're at Disney World? I'm going to give them my money for goods and services. And as a libertarian in not really care about the social positions they're taking. All right, Jonah, are you satisfied? Are you now going to drop your groceries in the line?

Curl your cans of tuna at the old lady with your checks. This is a prudential question where you have to calculate a little bit of the distance next door and whatnot, but I'm with them on that. I am a evangelist for spending the extra money on the line skipping stuff for amusement parks. Because I go with my daughter alone. last time I took it in an amusement park in California this year or the end of last year if we had not had the line skipping stuff we would have been able to ride maybe two roller coasters instead we I don't go to Disney World it depends on the park I don't know

Disney World it could be really expensive I don't know but like at like six flags type places what are we talking are 50 bucks it could be up to 100 but like if you figure on a hot day standing in line for 90 minutes with your impatient kid, it's terrible. And I just, I, I go to amusement parks maybe once a year, twice a year. It's totally worth it. They could charge me anything. And they nearly do to get clear at the airport so that you can skip the line.

A precheck helps you skip the second part of the line. But clear helps you skip the first part of the line. Except that LaGuardia's American and Delta terminals, do not have clear. So, dear LaGuardia, it sucks. But I've just learned that they have like a pay $10 and skip the line. So fine. But, you know, airports are a little bit more complicated because there is no alternative

airport. So these are, you know, where you have to wait in line. You know, I was in the Starbucks line at the airport the other morning. It was like 20 people deep. I didn't have a choice. I needed caffeine. There weren't any other options. So the airports make it, the DMV is a,

another example. I thought this was about your worth, Scott Lincolome, but you needed caffeine. I needed orange juice and you judged me. A cup of coffee is worth a lot more than I am. A couple, I mean, not even close. All right. So two things, two things super fast. One, Jonah's one million percent right on the amusement park line skipping. Don't go to the amusement park. It's my daughter's favorite thing in the world. No, go. They're fun. They're so fun. So Jonah's 100 percent correct. Number two, the area where Sarah's philosophy is most salient is in restaurant waits. When you go to a restaurant and they say, it's a 30-minute wait. And then you turn to your family and you say, it's 30 minutes.

And everyone goes, no. And then what do you do? You get back in the car and then you drive somewhere and then you ask there. And then, you know, you've been driving around maybe 10 or 15 minutes and they say 20-minute wait. And you're like, score. Wait a minute. No, hold on. I would already be 15, 20 minutes into my 30-minute wait.

That's where the Sarah philosophy of you've got to take into account driving and choosing time is absolutely salient. And we will end on the note that Sarah is right. I don't think there's anything more to be said on this topic. Thank you, listeners. And we will hear from you. No, you will hear from us again next week. Become a member. Join the comment section.

I have a feeling that the comment section might be particularly well lit. That's what the kids say, right? Well lit. It'll be lit this time around. So become a member of the dispatch and jump on in. The water is toasting. With Amex Platinum, access to exclusive Amex pre-sale tickets can score you a spot trackside. So being a fan for life turns into the trip of a lifetime.

That's the powerful backing of Amex. subject to availability and varied by race. Terms and conditions apply. Learn more at mx.ca. slash yanex.