The Majority Report with Sam Seder - 3689 - Senate Grills Trump Nominees; How Democrats Embraced Neoliberalism w/ Robert Kuttner

Episode Date: July 16, 2026

It's Thursday and that means another Majority Report On today's program: Trump's new pick to lead the DNI, Jay Clayton, participates in the Republican humiliation ritual that all Trump nominees must suffer through: denying the results of the 2020 election. Jon Ossoff holds Clayton's feet to the fire as Clayton tries to play cute and dumb but instead comes across as completely incompetent. House Dems vote in favor of Thomas Massie's proposal to cut off aid to Israel, showing a huge shift in the party over the last 5 years. Robert Kuttner, co-Founder and co-editor of The American Prospect and author of Notes for Next Time: Surviving Tyranny, Redeeming America, joins Sam for a pre-taped interview about his memoir and how the Democratic party came to embrace neoliberalism.   In the Fun Half:   Todd Blanche has a Freudian slip at his confirmation hearing.   Joe Biden disrupts Jill Biden's book event to plug his own book.   Ben Shapiro says that Lindsey Graham was the best senator ever because of who hated him.   Mara Gay has to hold man-baby Donny Deutsch's hands through a conversation about Israel and even still he loses his temper when faced with facts. All that and more. Tell your Senators to block the NDAA until it is stripped of the proposal to integrate U.S. and Israeli militaries. To connect and organize with your local ICE rapid response team visit ICERRT.com The Congress switchboard number is [phone]. You can use this number to connect with either the U.S. Senate or the House of Representatives. Follow us on TikTok here: https://www.tiktok.com/@majorityreportfm Check us out on Twitch here: https://www.twitch.tv/themajorityreport Find our Rumble stream here: https://rumble.com/user/majorityreport Check out our alt YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/majorityreportlive Gift a Majority Report subscription here: https://fans.fm/majority/gift Subscribe to the AM Quickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! https://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: https://majority.fm/app Go to https://JustCoffee.coop and use coupon code majority to get 10% off your purchase Check out today's sponsors: ZOCDOC: Find and book the right doctor https://Zocdoc.com/MAJORITY SUNSET LAKE CBD: Use coupon code "Left Is Best" (all one word) for 20% off of your entire order at SunsetLakeCBD.com.  Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech On Instagram: @MrBryanVokey Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on YouTube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.

You are listening to a free version of the Majority Report. Support this show at join the Majority Report.com and get an extra hour of content daily. It's Sam Cedar. It is Thursday, July 16th, 2026. My name is Emma Vigland, in for Sam Cedar, and this is the five-time award-winning majority report. We are broadcasting live steps. from the industrially ravaged Gowanus Canal in the heartland of America, downtown Brooklyn, USA. On the program today, Robert Cutner, co-founder and co-editor of the American Prospect,

an author of Notes for Next Time, Surviving Tyranny, Redeeming America, joined Sam, who recorded this conversation a little earlier, to discuss how Democrats embraced neoliberalism. Also on the program, 103 Democrats and one Republican Thomas Massey vote to block over $3 billion in State Department aid to Israel. The Pentagon says it's looking at military options against Cuba, including thousands of U.S. troops. When has that gone wrong, Matt, history buff? By the way, U.S. military resources are very strained in Iran right now. now. So good luck.

Trump is apparently unhappy with Hegzeth over how the Iran war is going. You'll be shocked to hear that Hegzeh was the most hawkish voice selling him on the efficacy of military action overriding the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

It's so boring. Just wrap it up. Iran says the U.S. launched an attack near a children's cancer hospital, causing a and that the U.S. is bombing closer to Tehran than ever before. Israel is also bombing Gaza again, killing at least five people overnight, including a little girl. A new ACLU and Human Rights Watch report on the East Montana Ice Camp in Texas finds 90% of detainees report beatings and abuse. and in a Georgia facility

a Venezuelan man 45-year-old Jesus Manuel Arenas Silva becomes the 22nd person to die in ICE custody this year. Trump is giving a speech tonight claiming that there was all this Chinese interference in the 2020 election apparently.

The stuff that everybody cares about. And speaking of China, there's a new Pew Global Survey that finds that China is viewed more favorably than the United States. Why could that be? Todd Blanche had an incredible Freudian slip during his Attorney General confirmation hearings, calling himself Trump's lawyer

before quickly correcting himself. And lastly, air quality warnings hit 20 states as smoke from the Canadian wildfires spreads to the U.S. All this and more. on today's majority report. Welcome to the show, everybody. It's an emmajority report Thursday.

We've been getting some concerns about where Sam is. He's fine. He's fine. He will be back eventually. But this will probably be his longest absence from the majority report in quite some time. He is doing Hollywood things. I'm not sure we can reveal what he's doing. But he's filming something.

That's okay to say? That is grandma. And that is grandma. I can't wait to play that for him and him be completely confused by it unless he's seen the segment and he's watching the show, which, you know, hopefully he's not because we've been making fun of him.

I think he does make a point to make sure to watch all of our PBD-related content when he's out. The most educational content that we put out, yes. So yesterday there were many hearings on Capitol Hill. It was a busy day. You had Todd Blanche's Attorney General confirmation hearing. which is kind of a bit of K Fabe, like he cannot get confirmed and Trump's just going to keep him as acting attorney general for the foreseeable future, most likely. But we'll play maybe a clip in the fun half of Senator Kennedy, like throwing up a softball for him and asking Blanche if he was Trump's friend. And he responded, I'm Trump's lawyer.

And oh, oh, sorry, I was, was Trump's lawyer. You know, the guy that personally spoke to Galane Maxwell and then transferred her to that cushy prison outside of traditional protocol for sex offenders. And suddenly she was very quiet about Trump's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Oh, is that part of the communications mistakes that were made as J.D. Vance admitted on Joe Roke. Oh, yeah, we made some mistakes in terms of how we communicated it. communicating the sentence communicating to her to keep quiet to go to walker dog in this

open air prison and then we have the Fed chair testimony as well with the Senate banking committee but what is really going viral here excuse me need to take a sip of water the air quality is really bad yeah it's crazy here I don't know people actually it's around the whole northeast

awful. Yeah. So there was the Senate Intelligence Committee hearings for Trump's pick for the director of national intelligence, replacing Tulsi Gabbard. When Tulsi Gabbard stepped aside, basically, Bill Pulte became acting DNI, and he is from, like, a real estate background. He has no national intelligence experience. And so this pick here,

was considered to be less controversial, Jay Clayton, because he had worked at Sullivan and Cromwell. What is their association with the deep state, by the way? I mean, I think going back to like the Panama Canal. Exactly. There is not a law firm that is more synonymous with like U.S. intervention overseas. And I mean, that's the Banana Republic and the Dallas Brothers. Right. So he's actually quite perfect for the deep state.

And he- The type of things that they have in their archives would be very, very interesting to browse through. But he was considered less controversial. He was a respected lawyer, basically, as opposed to just a 38-year-old real estate buddy from Florida, who was the acting head of the acting director of national intelligence. And yet, despite his so-called respectability and his so-called lack of controversy as it relates to other Trump nominees, he still cannot answer the central question.

question, the test of your independence. Did Trump win the 2020 election? Who won the 2020 election? And John Alsow, Senator from Georgia, just nails him here on this question and doesn't let up. Here is this moment yesterday from those hearings. 2020 election. I'm not I'm not going to do this with you. This is a job interview. We've established that you have an obligated. It's a very honest and forthright with the committee. Yes, you do have an obligation to be honest and forthright with the committee. Yes. Who won the 2020 election?

Like I said, I'm not going to get into that with you. But you do have an obligation to be honest and forthright with the committee. Is anything that I just said, not honest or forthright? Yes, you're not being honest or forthright. Who won the 2020 election? We can keep doing this. Well, we're going to keep doing it because you're not being honest and forthright with the committee. I'm not going to engage in the theater.

It's a simple question, Mr. Clayton. And I've answered. Who won the 2020 presidential election? I've answered it. You're here asking for the support of senators to lead America's intelligence community. We've established that you have an obligation to be honest and forthright with this committee and with the American public, but you refuse to answer a simple matter of fact about the 2020 election. Is that right?

No, that's not right. Then answer the question. Who won the 20th? I have answered the question. Answer it. What is your answer? I've given you my answer. What is your answer? You refuse to answer a basic question about who won a presidential election, but you asked to lead America's intelligence community. Isn't it humiliating to be unable to answer this question, to have to indulge the president's delusions? We know, you know, Everybody in this room knows the truthful answer to that question. Why can you not give it?

I think I gave you the answer. Are you aware that Director Gabbard was present at the Fulton County raid in Georgia earlier this year? Let's pause it for a second. We'll go back to that clip because it's also the next one that I wanted to hit on. Aossoff's whole testimony here, or questioning rather, was quite effective. it's just a simple test of your ability to not be a loyalist for Donald Trump and do your job faithfully. The problem is that he's literally being selected with that being the number one job requirement. And when Alls off here asked him about Tulsi Gabbard, this is also relevant for the reasons that I just said. because earlier this year, Tulsi Gabbard, who was at the time the director of national intelligence,

was present at this FBI raid in Georgia of the Fulton County voter rolls at this or at the elections office. She was the director of national intelligence. It's one, it's not a domestic law enforcement agency, but two, the implication of her presence at that raid would be that this has something to do with foreign interference. And so with Trump's address tonight where he's going to blame Chinese interference on, you know, him on the 2020 election results and is seemingly going to draw that comparison, essentially, the claim that China is the reason that, I don't know, the votes were switched. I will see what he asked to say.

That we're knocking us off God enough. Right, right. He's also claiming that they're illegitimate. this is quite relevant because it appears like the Director of National Intelligence, whoever, you know, if Clayton is confirmed, is going to be involved in this completely nonsense investigation into Georgia's election results from 2020 that are the result of the delusions that he speaks about there. So it's quite relevant here.

And here's the continuation of that questioning. Mr. Gabbard was present at the Fulton County raid in Georgia earlier this year? You discussed that with me yesterday in your office. Are you aware that Director Gabbard was present at the Fulton County raid earlier this year? You brought it to me. What is going on here? You've said at the beginning of this you have an obligation to be honest and forthright with the committee. I'm asking a very simple question.

Are you aware of it Director Gabbard was present? What we're about to see now is however old man, What, 60? This guy? About to act cute. Oh, yeah. With the committee, I'm asking a very simple question. Are you aware of a director gabbert was present at the Fulton County raid earlier this year? Yes or no? Are you aware? I was...

You won't answer that question either. I just said I was made aware of it by you yesterday. The first time you learned that Director Gabbard was present that raid was in my office yesterday? It was the first time that in my recollection I've thought about it recently. Was I aware of it before? What? What the First time in my recollection

I thought about it recently I can't rule out the fact that I have had amnesia about the reports of the predecessor for the job that I'm trying to take over being present at the raid of Georgia's election offices. He can't admit that he

knows about it but also if he admits that he doesn't know about it it's like why are you not competent to leave this office? He's like I don't, I just don't pay attention to the news you know, I'm not I'm nonpartisan. I'm more interested in baseball cards. I'll lock in when I get the job.

Yeah, right, right. How hard can it be to learn all about politics? I'll cram it. I'll cram it. Keep going on here. You brought it to me. What's going on here? You've said at the beginning of this, you have an obligation to be honest and forthright with the committee. I'm asking a very simple question.

Are you aware of a director Gabbard was present at the Fulton County rate earlier this year? Yes or no? Are you aware? I was... You won't answer that question. I just said I was made aware of it by you yesterday. The first time you learned that Director Gabbard was present that raid was in my office yesterday? It was the first time that in my recollection, I've thought about it recently.

Now, was I aware of it before? What? I really appreciate that what. Yeah. What? I mean, you brought it to my attention yesterday. I had not thought... So you had not known until...

I had not thought about it until you brought it to my attention. Your answers lack credibility. Your testimony lacks credibility. You're being evasive and you're not being candid or forthright. And everybody across the country is going to watch this and know that. Are you aware that former Director Graberd testified

that her presence at the raid was, quote, requested by the president? You're trying to phone the same threat. I'm not aware of that until now. Okay, you are now aware of that? Yeah. Are you aware that members of this committee are already probing Director Gabbard's potential misconduct in this matter?

I don't I'm not privy. I don't have Wi-Fi. Are you aware that the general counsel and deputy general counsel of your office have already provided testimony to this committee regarding this matter? You told me that. If the White House chief of staff or the president asks you to travel somewhere across the United States and oversee the execution of a domestic search warrant on a sensitive election facility, will you do it? Is that appropriate? Is that appropriate for the Director of National Intelligence? That's a hypothetical.

We all know it's not appropriate. Senator Oswald of National Intelligence. Will you answer the question? Your time is hypothetically is it appropriate? All right. Will you give him the opportunity to answer the question? Is this not material right now, sir? Is it appropriate for the Director of National Intelligence

to oversee the execution of domestic search warrants at sensitive election facilities? Yes or no? I think you're asking me, as you just said in your first comment to me? Yes or no? is it appropriate? No? You are asking me to comment on a matter that you just said was under investigation.

No, I'm asking you. Okay, Senator Ossoff, your time is expired. Disqualified. Vice Chairman, do you have anything to add? Well, Ossoff made the most of his time there. You would think that an esteemed lawyer from Sullivan and Cromwell would be a little bit better in this cross-examination, because we looked this up before the show. Assoff is not a lawyer.

Yeah. Like, Ossoff just schooled him in cross-examination. It's crazy to be from Sullivan and Cromwell. And that's like me if I got home late. And it's like, you said 10 o'clock. It's like it's 10.20. Yeah. Their clock said it was earlier.

It's astonishing. The director of national intelligence, this is a role that has, you know, increased in prominence since the turn of the 21st century as well. But prior to that, it's more when the powers of the executive. branch have been expanded. The Director of National Intelligence has also expanded in its powers. And it's a shadowy role that is certainly not supposed to be involved in on-the-ground domestic law enforcement operations unless this is some sort of conspiracy to undermine our electoral process. And that's exactly what's happening right now. And so it doesn't necessarily matter what your

resume is or the fact that you may have some New York lawyer friends that think that you're a smart guy. It matters what the job requirements are and what is being asked of you or demanded of you by this administration. And we know that this is essentially a test of loyalty about, well, one, the fact that senators are asking this of judicial nominees is relevant as well, because it's a test of their loyalty, but specifically about this case. Will you help us steal an election in the future? Given what Tulsi Gabbard was tasked with doing, Trump is going to task the next director of national intelligence with the same thing.

And she was kind of thrown under the bus by Todd Blanche, who as acting attorney general, because she was unable to, according to some reporting after commissioning reports on the election results come up with the answers that Trump wanted. And then she's out. You know, do you think, that Clayton learned that lesson? Do you think that he knows that if he doesn't deliver on the president's delusions, as Assoff said, that he'll be out of a job next? That is the lesson that is being

sent as Trump operates like a mafia boss. So it's it's horrifying stuff. And so, you know, that's essentially where we're at here. Yeah, a bunch of liars. And Trump's about to say some lies about China meddling in the election process, which they did not do at all, at all. And meanwhile, Trump, and our State Department, in fact, is giving money to Maga-aligned groups in Eastern Europe, just openly. Right. Imagine if China was doing that. Well, now we're going to talk about a country that's actually interfering in our elections

really briefly before we get to this interview with Robert Cutner. So just wanted to make sure we got this also in the first hour of the show because this is such an important story. Let's see. So yesterday, Thomas Massey, the Republican who was just ousted by record spending in a congressional House primary beating Jamal Bowman's race and Cory Bush's race with AP. pack pouring in as much money as possible into his primary. He lost. And he's the only Republican who voted for his own measure here. This amendment that Massey proposed would have halted around $3 billion, $3.3 billion in aid to Israel that would have gone through the State Department. It's the fiscal 2027 funding bill. And this amendment proposed

a prohibition on funds from this bill to being used by Israel. And the bulk of this money, of course, it's the foreign military financing program, goes to Israel. So as I mentioned, Massey was the only Republican to vote for his own amendment. But 103 Democrats voted with him as well. Now, it was obviously rejected. That's not enough. 104 to 314. so that's 103 Democrats plus Massey

and 10 Democrats cowardly Democrats voted present so when you take that math though that's 103 Democrats out of 212 in the caucus and 10 voted present so that's a very narrow plurality essentially of Democrats who voted yes

we need to block arms to Israel in April 2024 only 37 Democrats voted to block arms to Israel. And at the time, of course, it's like, you know, the usual suspects of good progressives where, you know, had Khazar, Bowman and Bush at the time, Taleb, AOC, Raskin, of Alaska's, Becca Belint, and more. You know, I don't need to list all of them. You probably know who some of them are Jayapal, Kana.

So those were the Democrats that, the 37 in April 2024 who voted to block arms. And you see, just like we saw with the Senate vote on Bernie Sanders' bill to block large bombs

and bulldozers to Israel, how the Democratic Party is slowly responding to the sea change in the electorate and in the base on arms to Israel. And the 103 Democrats who voted for this amendment have some surprising names in it.

Jake Oshencloss, isn't that shocking that? Catherine Clark, the number two Democrat in the House, the House Minority Whip. Seth Moulton, who is as hawkish as it gets, but he's trying to defeat Ed Markey in the primary right now. And one mama bear, Nancy Pelosi. Nancy Pelosi has... That is grandma. That's good. There's never been a more appropriate use of that is grim.

Because, like, she's a ruthless tactician, and it was often for things that we really, really disagreed with. But unlike Hakeem Jeffries, she understands politics and was really good at keeping the caucus together and whipping votes and doing politics, even when it was about defeating the left within her own party. But she also can see where the winds are blowing. This is what she said seven years ago. And just yesterday, Nancy Pelosi voted against $3 billion in arms to Israel. I have said to people when they ask me, if this capital crumbled to the ground, the one thing that would remain is our commitment to our aid. And I don't even call it aid, our cooperation with Israel. That's fundamental to who we, fundamental to our fundamental to.

insane. Turns out, not so much. Capital's still standing, despite the attempts of the January Sixers. And what's interesting is seeing Chuck Schumer sitting next to her grinning, by the way, as she says that. Well, I've heard through, like, the theory of

Forced the vote that if somebody votes for something, it means they definitely truly want that thing to come true, right? So this means Pelosi's an anti-Zionist now? I guess so. Sure. I guess so. It just is an indication of where things are. Where voters are. This is such a liability.

Oh, Detroit or Michigan, though, Haley Stevens voted, I wouldn't just note, was not one of these hundred that voted. Was not. Exactly right. Haley Stevens, captured by APEC, voted to continue sending arms to fund this genocidal rogue state. Here's the Washington Posts write up with some charts about where Democrats are. on this development. A number of Democrats who have voiced support for Israel voted for the amendment, including former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Catherine Clark, the minority whip.

We can put this up on the screen. In a statement, Clark, the number two House Democrat said, the status quo is not tenable. She added, we should not provide a blank check for military aid to any country that does not comply with U.S. law, interests and values. The Netanyahu government has failed to meet that standard. public support for Israel has plummeted over the country's military campaigns in Gaza and Lebanon, particularly among Democrats. Nearly three quarters of Democrats want to reduce or end military support for Israel, according to a Washington Post-Ipsis poll conducted July 8th to 13th.

40% of Democrats want to eliminate military support to Israel entirely, including 58% of very liberal Democrats. And you can see this chart here from the Washington Post where voters are. Republicans still, a majority of them, support maintaining or increasing support for Israel. Only 13% of them, even, those psychos. Yeah. But for the Democrats, in terms of keeping at current levels and increasing, like, what is that? 20, 23, 24. But when you add ending military support and reducing support, that is 74%.

percent. And still, it's only half of the caucus. They're not where their own voters are. But Akeem Jeffries tells me there's good faith reasons why Democrats might disagree on this stuff. And why, so of course, those 25 percent, they have good faith reasons that we must respect. And check out this chart right below it, because this also shows temporally how things have changed. The share of registered voters saying the U.S. is too supportive of Israel from January 2017 to now. you can see that obviously dramatically increase in terms of the total

support there based on age the Republicans have started hating Israel as Trump's got into office Right, right. That top line there for 74% are Democrats, leaning Democrats, age 18 to 49. 74% say that the U.S. is too supportive of Israel and Democrats and Democratic leaners 50 and over 64%. So there's, I mean, within Democratic voters or Democratic leaning voters,

that is the consensus opinion at this point. And so the Democrats that voted against cutting aid to Israel, Matt mentioned it. Haley Stevens was one of those individuals. Hakeem Jeffries was one of those individuals as leader of the Democratic. in the house. And there's still a long way to go, but this is a reminder that we should

always continue to push. Always push. Call your representatives. It makes a difference. Change is not easy, and it is way too sclerotic and slow, but it is making an impact. And it should also be a lesson for people who have been overly

swayed by Republican-aligned influencers on the internet talking about Israel. that the political constituency that can actually change things is the one where that is on the Democratic side and it's the side that supports universal human rights, not saying the Democratic party does, but the voters that support this and have that as an ethic versus the isolationism on the right that doesn't have really right now any power base within elected, the elected Republican Party. So Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens and Marjorie Taylor Green, who's now

essentially an influencer herself, can go out on podcasts and say what they feel. That's great. But for right now, the Republican Party is in lockstep with Israel, save for Thomas Massey, who is about to be out of office right now. The path to ending support for Israel is going to go through the Democratic Party because of the voters. not because of the representatives, but because that is what the voters are going to continue to demand. And it's not going to get any quieter. That's why Netanyahu and the Israeli government is so desperate right now

to maintain support amongst Republicans because they already see that the die is cast. And they're attempting to permanently essentially integrate the U.S. and Israeli militaries so that this question is not able to be answered democratically. And I would just add a house divide cannot stand. And if the Democratic leadership treats this like not something to be welcome, but something to be fought against, it will destroy the party. Exactly right. In a moment, you will hear Sam's interview with Robert Cutner.

But first, a word from one of our favorite sponsors. I would like to thank Zock Doc for sponsoring today's episode. Zock, we've talked about this many times, is one of like the easiest. services that I can think of in terms of being able to use it for free. You could just go online to go to Zoc Doc, find appointments for a doctor that you need. And you can see the calendar and their schedule. You don't have to deal with automated, you know, systems when you're calling into your doctor's office and, oh, why is it closed on a Monday for some reason? You can't reach them. You're playing phone tag. You have to deal with a bunch of different people or just robots on the phone.

Zoc Doc takes away that hassle, and it makes it easier for you the book doctor's appointments that you may have been putting off. I found my dentist through Zoc Doc. I really like my dentist, so that means that I'm going fairly regularly, which is good. And so I just couldn't recommend it more highly. Zock really solves the most frustrating parts of the patient experience. And say you have an emergency like Sam did with one of his crowns, he was able to find a dentist. on the other side of the country. Zoc Doc is free to use. They have more than 150,000 providers

with 200 plus specialties across all 50 states, and you're able to find someone if you want to filter by your insurance or you want to filter by specialty. Zoc Doc makes that easy with its searchable system. Your health matters and taking care of yourself

shouldn't be complicated. Find and book the right doctor with Zok doc doc. Head to Zocdoc.com slash majority to get started and check that appointment off your to-do list. That's Z-O-C-D-O-C dot com slash majority. Z-O-C-D-C dot com slash majority. We'll put a link to this down below in the video and episode descriptions. Find and book the right doctor at Zocdoc.com slash majority. All right, quick break.

And when we come back, you'll be hearing Sam's interview with Robert Cutner. We are back. Sam Cedar. on the Majority Report is a pleasure to welcome back to the program. Bob Cutner, Robert Cutner, is the co-founder and current editor of the American Prospect. In 1986, Cutner founded the Economic Policy Institute, currently serves on its executive committee. Cutner, in addition to many other jobs in the media, also served on the Senate Banking, Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs. affairs and author of now his 14th book, which is a memoir, Notes for next time, which is,

I have to say, incredibly appropriate for this very moment. Bob Cutner, welcome to the show. Thanks so much for having me. And let me just also just like say, you know, this is a memoir, but one which really is a way in which to travel through American politics over the some odd 50 years plus that you have been either writing about or directly involved. And I watched your interview with David Dayn, which folks can find on the American Prospect YouTube channel, which covered a lot of the sort of more personal aspects from your story.

We'll touch on that a little bit, but I can't encourage people enough to go over, to the American Prospect YouTube page. And listen, because really just a fascinating life in the context of politics, one of my favorite stories was how you almost inadvertently joined the CIA or became. But I will leave that for a moment. Let's start back, because for me, one of the things I want to focus on is your lessons from working on these committees, in the Senate because we're about to enter into a period where I think we're going to have a lot of hearings by Democrats. It would be wonderful. They take the Senate, but at the very least,

we're going to see it in the House. But before we get there, let's just talk just a little bit about your life. You grew up, was it in Brooklyn or the Bronx? I was born in the Bronx. Born in the Bronx. Ultimately, family moved to Scarsdale. Your father passed away when you were quite young. And you developed, I mean, a real, I guess, appreciation, a lived appreciation for the new deal that was prominent in that era. Just briefly tell us a little bit about that as I think it sets the tone for your politics. Frozen. Shall I just keep talking? Yeah, go ahead. Did you hear my question?

I did. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, go ahead. Let me just take a moment to locate that origin story, if you will, in the context of the sweep of what I'm trying to do in the book, because it's directly related. One of the three key points I make in the book is that the deal that my generation had was a better social contract, if you will, than anything that has been, offered before or since. And that we lost it.

I talk about why we lost it. And I talk about how we get it back. And the punchline is it will take a politics and a set of policies at least as radical as what FDR gave us to get anything like the social contract my generation had back for our children and grandchildren. And I grew up, I grew up. moderate income housing project in the Bronx called Parkchester. And, you know, my parents thought they had died and gone to heaven. They spent the Depression very rough time in a series of

small cramped apartments in Queens. And Parkchester was developed with tax abatements and public subsidies. And then when my father got sick, I was eight years old. My mother and began having very adult conversations, what would happen if he died. And he was getting wonderful medical care thanks to the new VA hospital. And my mother said, no, we won't lose the house because of something called Social Security. And when you put together Social Security built with government help and the VA and Partchester, Social Security, Partchester, the VA, As I say in the book, I was a new dealer in my bones before I'd ever heard of FDR because my lived experience was that of a package of things that helped my family stay in the kind of lower middle class.

And then, of course, being a poor kid in a rich town, my parents and my grandfather had bought a little 900 square foot house just inside the Scarsdale line so that I could attend a good school. and being around rich kids as a kid from a family with no money, that also honed my sense of social class. And then I went to Oberlin in the sort of hopeful part of the 60s. So all of this kind of formed my politics. But I think that was a very hopeful time. And I guess one of the things I try to explore via my own life Odyssey is how could we have had such a good deal for most working people. And then how did we lose it? What did the Democratic Party do wrong, beginning with Carter and Clinton and then Obama and the influence of the corporate Democrats,

the Wall Street Democrats, Robert Rubin, in really screwing it up and getting in bed with Wall Street to the point where working families no longer saw the Democratic Party as their champion? And that began the road to Trump. What happened? How do we get that back? And that's a lot of what I talk about. And I'll get to Senator Proxmire in the banking committee in a moment, if you like. Yes, I would. I'm really interested in that and the implications of the things that you worked on and how they resonated. But let's talk a little bit about, you know, just a little bit more about your life in terms of how it gave you perspective on what the Democrats did wrong. Because you were also a journalist for a long time. And it led you ultimately, I mean, following your stint with Proxmeier, you set up the Economic Policy Institute,

or one of the three founders. And then you also went on to co-found the American prospect. So you had an awareness of both like what needed to happen on a policy level, but also what needed to happen on a journalistic level in terms of sort of write that ship. But from your perspective, as a journalist prior to that, what was it that, and I guess also in terms of your government service, how did that turn happen? Like what, what, because for, you know, we had a 30 year Democratic majority in the house. We, in the 50s and 60s, we had a 90% top tax rate for people making over approximately $470,000 at that time, maybe close to $3 million today.

How did it, how did we lose sight as a country of what was working? Because that was, I mean, obviously we needed to emancipate women. We needed to emancipate black people. We needed to move in. you know, in terms of the social emancipation, but how did we get a, how did we lose in that process, providing materially for our people? So that's a lot of what the book talks about.

And I was involved in this, both as a protagonist and as a journalist. So it's a tragedy in three acts, right? So Act one is Johnson and the war. So Johnson has a majority almost as big as FDRs. And if you go back to 1964, Johnson wins in a, landslide. He has almost two to one majorities in Congress, and he is poised to launch the unfinished business of the New Deal. And the attempt to extend American democracy to black people would have been a heavy lift in any case. But he sets out on that road very heroically. And then,

of course, he blows it all on Vietnam. And the tragedy of Vietnam is not just that, it distracted attention from the unfinished business of the New Deal, but that it split the Democratic coalition, both politically and culturally, the hippies in the hard hats, and lets Nixon become president, and the Democratic coalition, in a sense, never really recovers from that catastrophe. So that's act one of the tragedy. Then, a miracle of miracles, Nixon blows it all on Watergate. And one of the things I did in my journalistic life, I was part of the Watergate team at the Washington Post. I had a front row seat for that. And Miracle of Miracles, not only does Nixon get impeached and is forced to leave office, but 1976, we elect a Democratic president.

And Jimmy Carter, thanks to the Watergate Congress, has a very, very important. big working majority. Oh boy, here we get a do-over. When does history ever give you do-over? But Carter turns out to be the most conservative Democrats since Grover, Cleveland. He's sort of a process liberal. Despite having a big majority in Congress, name any kind of landmark legislation you can credit to Jimmy Carter. Zip. Zero. Labor law reform? No, not interested. Any of the any of the important pieces of unfinished business that he might have enacted, that's not who he is. So you have another failed presidency. And worse, Carter begins to turn to neoliberalism. He decides, hey, we need deregulation. We need privatization. We need supply-side economics.

The first supply-side bills, tax cuts for the rich, are not passed under Reagan. They're passed under Jimmy Carter. So, and then that begins a succession of neoliberal presidents, of whom the worst was Bill Clinton. And, you know, Clinton, Clinton hires Bob Rubin and Larry Summers. He hires Wall Street to run the economy by and for Wall Street. He buys into the ideology of budget balance. And even worse, when after a few years, it all. blows up in 2008, and Barack Obama, who really hadn't quite expected to be the nominee, realizes, oh, my God, I'm going to be the nominee, and I wrote a book about this,

the only book I ever wrote that ended up on the bestseller list called Obama's Challenge, and it's June of 2008. He's got two people working for him, two and a half people, his entire economic team, one of whom is a really good guy named Dan Turillo, a progressive. And Obama gives his speech at Cooper Union that March or April talking about all the things that are wrong with Wall Street that need to be cleaned up. The speech is drafted by Terrillo. And then in June, when he realizes that he's going to be the nominee, all the financial heavy hitters in the party go to Obama and they say, hey, look, you've got to bring in the A team. Well, who's the A team? Well, the A team is Bob Rubin's protégés and Larry Summers.

and Rahm Emanuel, and all of the people who bought the financial deregulation, brought the financial deregulation that caused the collapse of 2008. He brings them in to fix it. Summers' advice is, we don't need a big stimulus to deficit reduction. So the recession drags on and on and on, and that leads directly to Trump. So you have three Democrats who gratuitously embrace neoliberalism because that's where the big money is. I mean, Rubin starts out as a fundraiser. He ends up becoming an advisor.

He ends up being an ideologue. And of course, he comes from Wall Street. He goes back to Wall Street when they repeal the Glass-Steagall Act so that you can have an investment bank merge with a commercial bank known in some circles as the city group Enabling Act. he becomes a top executive of the city group. So the whole thing is corrupt. It's a wasted opportunity. Obama is a magnificent human being. He's a person without a whiff of scandal attached to him.

He's eloquent. But he bungles, like Johnson, with different dynamics, a moment that history hands him to be Roosevelt yet again. And so my question is, how in the hell are we going to get this back? with well two questions before we get to that i and i i should say i i um i had been appearing on elliott spitzer's program uh back uh in the in 2010 this is after he had to resign from uh governorship but um people may forget that as attorney general he went after these bankers very very um hard and i suspect that they were involved in uh helping expose his um

visiting of prostitutes, which caused his resignation. But he told me at one point, he said, I asked him, how is it that Obama is so enthralled by these people, being the Rubinites, as it were, because many people voted for Obama thinking that they were going to get away from Rubinite. And he said, you know, he didn't understand. He thinks these guys are masters of the universe.

Spitzer said, I went to Princeton with these guys. I know they're all C students and they cheated tennis was his comment. But how is it that, I mean, how did Carter? This is, I'm kidding. I understand that like Clinton came in and I remember that election very clearly. And I didn't start, I missed voting for Mondale against Reagan by a number of weeks at that time. But how did, what was going on that a conservative like Carter won the Democratic nomination?

Did he project a populism because he was a peanut farmer and all shucks and people sort of projected onto him an economic populism? What was it? You know, so when Carter declared for the presidency, and this is the early spring of 1975, and I'm the junior man on the national staff at the Post, and I draw the assignment of going to the press club for Carter's announcement. I'm the only national reporter there, and his name recognition, not his support, but his name recognition, is 2%.

Okay? Wow. So in the course of a year and a half, he wages the ultimate outsider campaign. And after Nixon is engaged, and the so-called Watergate class comes into office in January of 75, they're all processed liberals. They're all, let's clean up the,

you know, the ills that allow Watergate to happen. And it's also a very weak field in 1976. And so people read their hopes onto Carter. He's an outsider. He's a peanut farmer. He's a southerner. And he's an interesting character in that he represents the New South. He's a liberal on race.

And Atlanta's the city that's too busy to hate. Remember that slogan. And so he's going to merge economic development and being a liberal on race and being a moderate on everything else. And he's going to get the business community on his side. And that's the recipe that he commenced to the country. And with the exception of Ramsey Clark, who we didn't quite realize how radical Ramsey Clark would turn out to be, and Ray Marshall, his labor secretary, his whole cabinet was fairly conservative.

And even so, if it hadn't been for two things, he might have gotten reelected. I mean, he got very unlucky on the inflation, the OPEC inflation of the 70s, and he got even more unlucky with the Iranian hostage crisis, which still comes back to haunt us. But his failure then opens the door to Reagan. And I want to come back to why we founded the prospect and EPA. So if you think about what was going on in the 1980s, Reagan is president, supply-side economics, he's phenomenally popular, deregulation. And the conventional wisdom at that point is, gee, the Democrats have a lot to learn from Reagan. The Democrats need to give up being economic populace and they need to become more like Reagan.

And so several of us who were saying, no, God damn it, Democrats need to be more plausible new dealers. That's why we're getting killed. Working people don't trust the Democrats anymore. And Reagan is this sort of happy, sunny character. And so the first thing we did was we said, let's have an intellectually serious think tank that makes the case for progressive economics, not with rhetoric, but with research. with data. And so we raised some money. We founded the Economic Policy Institute. The Economic Policy Institute, you know, has become a landmark institute. Every year it publishes this state of working America. It got famous for this iconic chart comparing the rate of productivity growth with a rate

of worker wages. And up until the 70s, the two curves go in lockstep. And then it looks like an alligator's jaws where productivity goes through the roof and wages go fly. And wages go flat. And flat. And then I think later in the decade, the same thing is happening with journals. The New Republic, otherwise known as the New Republican, is becoming more like the right wing, not just because Marty Parrott's buys it, but because the conventional wisdom is, oh, we, we have a lot to learn from the Republicans. And Washington Monthly is formed to be an organ of neoliberalism. And so, Paul Starr and Bob Reich, and I said, no, man, we need to be more persuasive new dealers for a different era rather than saying, oh, we're also going to move to the center. And so we founded the prospect.

And, you know, there's a chapter in my book called Winning the Arguments, Losing the Politics. And I think our arguments have been vindicated. Neoliberalism did not improve the rate of economic growth. It just made the rich, richer, and everybody else worse off. Corporate-sponsored free trade was good for Wall Street, was good for China, was bad for Americans in general. Deregulation was great for some industries. It was terrible for the whole ideal of managed capitalism. And so on one intellectual argument after another, we've been vindicated, but we keep losing the politics. And we keep losing the politics. And we keep losing the politics because the Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party has all the money, and that has an

immense amount of influence. And I also think in fairness, and we can get into a whole separate debate about this, I think bringing black people and women and LGBT people into the mainstream of America with all of the rights that that conveys would have been really tough. under the best of circumstances. Now, I, like a lot of other economic progressives, I think maybe our side overdid woke, but it was much, much harder than it needed to be because we fell down on the job of serving working people economically.

And that made everything else much more arduous. So I will come back to Senator Proxmire when you want me to. In one moment, and this will lead into it. I know you've written a book, too, about the tax revolt era, and specifically Proposition 13 in California. My first book. And I grew up in Massachusetts, and Massachusetts adopted, I think it was Prop 1. Massachusetts had its own very prop 13. Exactly.

And I remember it very well because it was the year I was in high school, and all of a sudden, we had nothing. I mean, the high schools were absolutely, I mean, I assume the elementary schools and the middle schools as well, but because this was, you know, property tax reform, our schools got particularly hit. What, like, what was the, in the country, I mean, because it feels like that anti-tax sentiment was really exploited to open the door to neoliberalism in many respects and inject it. And so what was happening at that time where there was this turn on taxes? Because you're freezing again. Oh, sorry, that's okay. I don't know if you heard that question, but what was the, what was happening at the time in terms of this turn against taxes? Yeah.

I should say I got my, I don't have a doctorate. I dropped out of a Ph.D. program at Berkeley because it was the 60s and I was restless. and I got my graduate education in political economy two ways. I got it working as the chief investigator for the Senate Banking Committee in the 70s, and then I got it in the early 80s when I wrote my first book, which was called Revolt of the Havs, which was a book about, gee, how did Proposition 13 happen to happen? And it's such an instructive story.

And basically the story is this. In California, in the 70s, you had a poisonous meal, mix of inflation and a default by liberals to deal with the effect of inflation on property taxes. So here's what happened. Inflation is high in the 70s anyway. It's particularly high in California where housing prices are going through the roof. And unless the state legislature or the governor or some combination of both intervenes, to keep higher housing prices from translating mechanically into higher property taxes,

property taxes are going to double and treble. And so that's what happened in 1976, 1976, 1977, 1978. Jerry Brown is governor. Jerry Brown at that point is hoping to run for president in 1980, and he's hoping to run for president challenging Carter and the Democratic, primaries as a progressive who's also a fiscal conservative. And the way he's going to claim that he's a fiscal conservative is he wants the state budget in California to show a huge surplus. And how does he do that? Well, the more property taxes go through the roof, the less Sacramento has to part with

local aid. And so Sacramento can bank this big surplus. So instead of realizing what a time bomb these property taxes and the property tax increases were, Jerry Brown sits on that state surplus. And meanwhile, people are being taxed out of their homes. And this screwball who completely anticipates Trump named Howard Jarvis, who nobody had taken seriously, comes out of nowhere, sponsors Proposition 13, to cut property taxes by over $6 billion. dollars and Prop 13 wins almost two to one. That's two years before Reagan is elected. And interestingly, that is taken as a turn against big government. It was not a turn against government. It was a turn

against the unfair allocation of the tax burden. And if Democrats had not bungled that, they would have beaten it. They would have used state aid to cut property taxes. So, It's a classic case of what happens when Democrats bungle a genuine economic grievance. The right takes over. The right articulates it. That prefigures Trump by about 50 years. It's the same story. And then it spreads like wildfire.

It happens to state after state. Massachusetts, interestingly, we try. I've been in Massachusetts since 1979. We tried four times. to get tax reform. And the good guys finally did it a couple of years ago with a ballot initiative to tax millionaires. They added a tax bracket to the tax code. First time we've ever had a progressive tax in Massachusetts, but limited to millionaires. Now, you know what the governor did? The governor is kind of a centrist Democrat. She gave a lot of it back. And this produced windfalls

for housing and transportation. And on the one hand, she took credit for it, even though she was opposed to it. I mean, they had to go around the governor, around the legislature with a ballot initiative to get this thing passed. They had to pass it twice because it was a constitutional amendment.

She gives a lot of it back and then takes credit for the increased spending on transportation and housing. So, you know, this is the power of economic populism. and it's also the power of dropping the ball economically and letting the other side articulate grievances. Right. Let's talk about your time on the Senate Committee on Banking and Housing and Urban Affairs, and you're working for Senator William Proxmire from Wisconsin.

And this is what you attribute at least a big part of your political economy. education to and you work on the Community Reinvestment Act which ends up being a scapegoat in 2008 in some in many circles for the financial crisis again I mean it is just like the ability of those neoliberal forces and Democrat and Republican you know it's just like lesser degrees I guess or a question of degree between the two of them. Their capacity to shape these narratives in the public is there's just, you know, EPA is one of those ways, which I know that I as a commentator have used resources from you guys for 20 some odd years now pushing back on these narratives.

But it's an uphill struggle because there's a lot more resources on the other side to create these sort of fictional things. We can get into why the Democrats never exploited Kansas after our laugher went there with Sam Brown back. But tell us what you learned on this committee, also both in terms of like the political economy, but also in terms of like how hearings are supposed to function. Because to me, when we look to that there's going to be so many challenges going forward, but at least in the short term,

maximizing the value of hearings, it seems to me, is going to be the best opportunity for Democrats to reorient. So in very early 1975, Proxmire, who was a great progressive, totally honorable, decent guy, nice guy, smart guy, becomes chairman of the Senate banking committee. And so he gets a bunch of staff slots. He's looking for a chief investigator, and he hires me. And I report for work, and the first thing that happens is the staff director hands me a folder called redlining. And Proxmeier had been the chairman of the subcommittee on consumer affairs. He started working on redlining. Redlining, I think, as most of your listeners know, is the process by which banks, with the complicity of the FHA, by the way, literally draw red lines around neighborhoods that are minority or that are deemed to be changing,

and you can't get ordinary mortgage loans in those neighborhoods. And so a remarkable coalition of community groups, a lot of them are Olinsky organizers in the mode of Saul Olinsky, where local people really take the leadership on issues. and a number of community groups start saying, hey, look, the enemy is not black people. The enemy is banks. And a certain amount of racial change is normal. And we want to welcome black neighbors,

but at a pace that is socially bearable so that it doesn't lead to panic selling on the part of white people. And so you have this amazing multiracial coalitions, abolition doing research by going to recorders of deeds one transaction at a time and looking at which banks are still lending in these old neighborhoods and which banks are pulling out deposits but not putting in loans. And so after about a week on the job, a delegation of about 20 of these amazing people led by a woman named Gail Sincata out of Chicago's West Side comes and

meets with me and presents their research to me. And I said, wow, this is really impressive. What do you folks want? And they said, well, we want two things. First of all, we want federal legislation that would require banks to disclose by zip code or by census tract where they are making loans so that we don't have to do this research one transaction at a time. And secondly, we like Proxmire to hold hearings on this to expose some of the abuses. I said, wow, that's, that is really fantastic. And I was really even more impressed by the fact that this is a multiracial coalition. Now, this is 1975. This is less than a decade after Stokely Carmichael kicks whites out of the movement. Remember that? And there were not a lot of multiracial coalitions floating around in 1975. So I presented this to Proxmire

and to my boss, the staff director, Ken McLean. And they said, yeah, this is great. Go for it. So I had, early in my career, I had worked in radio and television, when you want to produce for dramatic effect. And so we had four days of hearings, and we invited a number of these community groups to tell their stories. And we also invited a bunch of bankers so the proxmark could beat up on them.

And we also invited a bunch of bankers. And we also found two good guy bankers, one from Philadelphia, one from Chicago, who were committed to putting money back into the old neighborhoods. And then the grassroots groups did a huge amount of lobbying with other grass groups groups. And we caught the bankers kind of asleep at the switch. And we passed the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act requiring disclosure of lending by two votes in the Senate. and then we tacked it on to a must-pass housing bill in the House, and it becomes law. And then we said, hey, we got a cool coalition here. What else can we do?

And then we come up with a Community Reinvestment Act, which provides that not only do banks have to disclose, but they have an affirmative obligation to seek out lending opportunities in old neighborhoods, in changing neighborhoods. And here's the crucial line, which gives the lie to the slander of 2008, consistent with sound lending standards, consistent with sound lending standards. And so by 2008, the wise guys on Wall Street had invented exploding subprime mortgages. If the bank regulators had followed the Community Reinvestment Act, subprime mortgages would have been illegal.

So quite apart from the charge that the community reinvestment, Investment Act was somehow the culprit. It was the failure to reinforce the Community Reinvestment Act that caused the collapse of 2008. But because Obama and his people, Gaitner, Tim Geithner, the Treasury Secretary and Larry Summers, the top economic guy, were so weak in holding the banks accountable that narrative took hold. I mean, to be fair to them, maybe they weren't just weak in holding the banks accountable, they were there sort of providing a concierge service for the banks. And we should say, you know, I mean, I still remember the story that was retold by Barney Frank at the time that Paulson had said to him, I'm willing to go directly to the homeowners.

But Obama's got to sign off on it. And according to Barney Frank said Barney Frank, I mean, Obama, who was then, President Elect said there's only one president at a time, sort of allowing Bush to start the process of, we're going to pay off the banks and hope they do right by the homeowners that, of course, ended up, you know, with that and tarp and everything else ended up not working out in the way that they supposedly assumed it would. Well, so two stories. Barney Frank was chairman of the House Banking Committee and, of course, the co-sponsor, the Dodd-Frank bill. But Rahm Emanuel, who was then chief of staff previously to Obama, previously had been the head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Rom saw the House Banking Committee as a chance for corporate Democrats to raise a lot of money from bankers. And he loaded Barney's committee up with so many corporate Democrats. The worst case just got reelected to Congress, by the way, Melissa Bean, that Barney didn't control his own committee. And so the Dodd-Frank Act was weaker than it might have been because there were so many corporate Democrats on the House Banking Committee. The other story is that, you know, as a condition of passing that bill, when Bush was still president, the Democrats insisted on having a congressional oversight panel,

and some of the skewer Harvard professor named Elizabeth Warren was named to be chairman of the oversight panel. That's how Warren came to prominence. And Warren and her deputy, Damon Silvers, who was the AFLCIO's chief guy on corporate finance, they became kind of Obama's lawyer. opposition. And as a condition of passing that aid, they insisted that $50 billion be set aside so that homeowners could get refinanced mortgages so that they wouldn't lose their homes. Geithner refused to spend most of the money. Most of that money reverted to the Treasury. I mean, you know, if you look at who Obama ended up appointing, it's, it's, it's, It's like Roosevelt had appointed Herbert Hoover's economic team.

It's the people who caused the crisis were put in charge of economic policy for a supposed reform president. Yeah. And that's how the right captured the narrative. Yeah, I think so. And we see it time of time. And there was another Rubinite Frommon, I think his name was John Frommon, who was in charge of the trade. And I'm quite convinced that the TPP also. damaged Hillary Clinton's chances in 2016, and just the fact that it was in the air was very helpful

to Donald Trump. Absolutely right. We could go on and on in that respect. But let's just talk about looking forward because you do say American democracy will probably survive Trump. And it's, you know, to the extent that we have an American democracy, it may be the case. I had a very interesting interview last week with a professor who's written that he perceives that from the beginning, more or less, we've had both an oligarchy and a democracy running concurrently, building on the work of, his name escapes me from Princeton, but that when any issue involving money, essentially, comes up, the wealthy win. And then for the rest of the issues, there's more or less democracy.

But when we talk about sort of like a broad structural stuff in terms of the economics, so when you say that process Democrats came in in the wake of Watergate, or I should say process liberals, one of my concerns, and it seems like there's been an attempt to have those return on some level, In many respects, Joe Biden was a, at least one as a process liberal. He did some things that I know that you and I both appreciate some things that he did not. But leaving that aside, how do we get back on track and return to a sort of a New Deal disposition among Democrats where along fighting that process liberal impulse, that would come in after what is probably the most corrupt presidency in the history of the country, or at least in modern era. Well, okay. So just to be clear, you need both. You need all kinds of process reform and you need substantive progressivism.

Because even if you, you know, get rid of the corruption and put big money back in its place, you then have to take that and run with it and get substantive progressivism. so that ordinary people have a prospect of making a decent living. So you need both. First, you've got to get elected. You got to elect a president and a Democratic Congress in 28. Now, what are the chances of that? So here's where the last couple of chapters of my book are both optimistic and not so optimistic. Here's the optimistic part. I think against all odds, democracy seems to be holding. Trump is overplaying his hand. The Iran war is a catastrophe. Republicans are beginning to defect.

He's got this Hail Mary pass notion that if I can just get control of elections, then I can stage a kind of a coup. But I don't think the Senate's going to pass the Save Act, even though he's won some court decisions on the most important court decisions, like birthright citizenship, like can he federalized the National Guard, like can he fire the Federal Reserve? He's lost some key decisions. And the lower courts just are overruling his attempt to get control of elections by executive orders.

And I think I wouldn't bet my life on it, but I think we're probably going to have reasonably honest elections this fall, and I think it's going to be a democratic wave. Okay, that's maybe the good news. But if you look at the kind of social contract than my generation, and maybe to some extent, Sam, your generation had, debt-free college, housing that you can afford that builds equity over a lifetime, jobs that are not gigs that lead to careers, jobs that have decent pensions, not just gigs,

how on earth do you recreate that social contract for children and grandchildren of people my age? And my punchline is, wow, that's going to take a politics and a set of policies, at least as radical as Roosevelt. And I haven't seen one of these 2029 blueprints that goes far enough. I mean, you take the case of health insurance. Even if we had Medicare for all

and we keep these for-profit middlemen who are sucking money out of the health care system, that would just add costs. And Obamacare, as far as it went, because it worked through private insurers, you're subsidizing an inefficient system. So to be illiberally, you need to be a radical at times. And I have a line in the book where I say,

I don't think I've become more Marxian, and I think the world has become more Marxian. And this is a society of extractive capitalism. The kind of capitalism that operated after World War II, when were well regulated and entrepreneurs actually delivered

real stuff, that's gone. We have extractive capitalism. We have hedge funds and private equity and tech pros and surveillance capitalism.

And to get back a kind of social democratic economy that serves ordinary people is really going to take radical reforms. I don't know, even if we get

democracy, back, even if we elect a president who's a Democrat and a Democratic Congress, you know, you need a president who's both a visionary and a practical politician, and that's going to take some to him. Well, hope springs eternal, I guess. It has to. Indeed. The book is notes for next time.

Can't recommend it enough. Fascinating story. We barely scratch the surface of your really. David Day and said Zelig-like life in terms of both politics and the journalism, politics from both a journalist and an economist and a working for the government. Bob Cutner, thanks so much for your time. I really appreciate it. Thanks for having me. We are back.

Folks. Hope you enjoyed that conversation between Sam and Robert Cutner. And we're going to wrap up the free part of this show and head into the fun half soon. As a reminder, this show relies on your support. Join the Majority Report.com. Helps us survive and thrive. You can IAM into the show. We'll read your IMs.

Please do. It would be very helpful if you could become members. I don't know how to end these pitches in an artful way. But that is grandma. And we now have Brandon Sutton. with us. Hello, Brandon. That's right. That's right. Hello, Emma. Hello. I'm feeling so weird today with like the air quality. I don't know what's going on. I've got like brain fog or something. It's so odd outside.

Like sort of permanently lightheaded. Exactly. And slow. I'm like, are the words coming out of my mouth making sense? I'm not quite sure. But, uh, hard to enunciate too. My throat's like swollen. Exactly. It's, it's bad. It's bad over here. Um, but what's happening on the disc, course in lighter news. Oh, I don't know if it's in lighter news because we were covering the myasma that has engulfed the United States. I like to think that it's a metaphor for Trump's rule. Like he has this kind of like toxic, spiritual and now literal miasma that like just

descends upon America. But we've been covering, and I think we need to catch back up on this, the ongoing case against Tyler Robinson, what's happening there, and how the right-wing media sphere has basically, I think, had another civil war over this particular case. Yeah, yeah. I mean, it's basically Candace versus everybody. You know, Candice versus the narrative, right? Although.

I heard Tucker still on the same side or is that sort of, like, where's Tucker at? I saw him say, like, he feels sorry for Trump the way he would feel sorry for any slave. Oh, shut up. He has agency, you psycho. Tucker is an expert fence sitter. Like of all the people who may be like true believers versus grifters, like Tucker is a chameleon. And he has been his entire career, you know, on the right wing side.

And so Tucker is like grift maxing. And I think that he's managed to fence sit on the appropriate issues in such a way. I don't know what his like in detail opinions about the Tyler Robinson case are. I feel like he's barely touched it compared to people like Candace. or even like Alex Jones more recently. And, you know, not the, you know, real Alex Jones, obviously, the clone that has replaced him that we are, you know, also calling Alex Jones, obviously. Obviously.

We've been keeping up with that. So I would definitely recommend going over and joining the discourse because we are actually a little bit less than 900 subscribers away from 25,000 subscribers on YouTube. Hey. You were growing up a clip here. I am growing at a clip, much like a newborn baby. I am getting larger every time you see me. Every time, every time you go to buy me a new pair of shoes, you think to yourself, God damn, this little something's feet is getting bigger every time.

And, you know, honestly, it's true. It's true. soon they'll have to invent a whole new element to make a plaque for me for YouTube out of something radioactive. Brandonium. Brandonium, right? That does work. Right. That has the same subtlety as James Cameron's choice to call the entity or like the resource that they're trying to get in Avatar on a botanium.

I think subtlety is for losers. I think that like subtlety is for people who don't want to take responses. for what they actually believe. I would never choose to be subtle, use subtext, make hints, leave clues. You know, that's what you get on discourse. Unfiltered, unfiltered psychological warfare

aimed at you and your community. So go over to the discourse with Brandon on YouTube or Twitch and hit that like and subscribe button, smash that bell that tells you when I'm on, and just start plugging yourself into what's really going on.

Yeah, plug into the Matrix, folks, and subscribe to the discourse. You are truly a gem, my friend. Matt Binder, hello, good to see you. Hello, good to see you, too. How are you doing? I'm doing all right. What's happening over on your show? Just tune into YouTube.com slash Matt Binder and be wowed.

Anytime you see something pop up or I go live because I know it's more. The spontaneity is. part of the fun. Matt, like what's happening with you? Yeah, over on left reckoning, we talked Sam Caras about the Big Bend Wall, which is only

really making the contractors happy and scarring a pristine landscape. And also talk to Ishmael Johnson about the cost of youth sports in the wake of soccer commentator Alexie Wallace wondering, who's going to pay for all this free soccer

that we apparently need to compete at the highest level and we haven't paid for it, so now we can't. And tomorrow on The Jackman Show, Brendan James of Blowback Podcast, talking about their series on Israel, no daylight, and the relationship between Israel and America. All right.

Folks, we will see you in the fun half. Okay, Emma, please. Well, I just, I feel that my voice is sorely lacking on the majority report. Wait, look, Samma's unpopular. I do deserve a vacation at Disney World. So, ladies and gentlemen, it is my pleasure to welcome Emma to the show. It is Thursday.

I think you need to take over for Sam. Yes, please, sir, I'm going to pause you right there. Wait, what? You can't encourage Emma to live like this. And I'll tell you why. So it's offered a twerk, sushi, and poker with the boys. Boy, so it's offered sushi and pop. That's what we call bids.

Dwerp, sushi, and... I just think that what you did to Tim Poole was mean. Free speech. That's not what we're about here Look at how sad he's become now You shouldn't even talk about it Because I think you're responsible I probably am in a certain way

But let's get to the meltdown here Twerp I'm sorry I'm losing my fucking mind So it's offered with twirp Sushi and poker with the boys Logic Twerp Sushi and a little kid

I'm not trying to be a dip right now But like I absolutely think the U.S. should be providing me with a wife and kids That's not what we're talking about. It's not a fun job. Sam has like the weight of the world on the shoulders. It was so much easier.

One of the majority to report was just you. People saying reckless things on your program. That's one of the most difficult parts about this show. This is a pro-killing podcast. I'm thinking maybe it's kind of we bury the hatchet. Left is best. Violet twerk. Steam song.

I Bumbler. Emma Viglin. Absolutely one of my favorite people. Actually, not just in the game, like, period.