The NPR Politics Podcast - Weekly Roundup: Friday, November 1

Episode Date: November 1, 2019

Sen. Elizabeth Warren released her plan to pay for single-payer health care without imposing new taxes on the middle class. Plus, Timothy Morrison verified to House investigators that President Trump leaned on Ukraine to launch investigations he thought might help him. He worried about blowback — but not legal implications. This episode: White House correspondent Tamara Keith, senior editor and correspondent Domenico Montanaro, political correspondent Asma Khalid, political reporter Danielle Kurtzleben, Congressional correspondent Susan Davis, and White House correspondent Franco Ordoñez. Email the show at [e-mail]. Find and support your local public radio station at npr.org/stations.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Quick note before we get started, we are doing a live taping of our show in Washington, D.C. So if you want to hear what we think about the latest political news, or if you've just ever wondered what it's like to see a podcast tape live, join us at the Warner Theater on November 8th. Information and tickets at nprpresents.org. Hope to see you there. Hello, NPR. My name is Anisha, and I just got done with my closing shift at the library, which is apparently haunted by a ghost named Mrs. Goss. This podcast was recorded at 107 p.m. on Friday, November 1st. Things may have changed by the time you hear this, and hopefully I still haven't met Mrs. Goss.

Okay, here's the show. I was going to say, I hope Mrs. Goss is a friendly ghost. Yeah, maybe she's nice. She just's the show. Danielle Kurtzleben, and I cover politics. And I'm Domenico Montanaro, senior political editor and correspondent. All right, so Elizabeth Warren, the news today is that she has a plan. Another one. Yeah, so I mean, she... A big one. I don't know if that itself is news. Well, right. But she had gotten a lot of criticism for having plans for just about everything,

except for how she would pay for Medicare for all. Your signature, Senator, is to have a plan for everything except this. No plan has been laid out to explain how a multi-trillion dollar hole in this Medicare for all plan that Senator Warren is putting forward is supposed to get filled in. Okay, so Danielle, you are our resident health policy nerd reporter covering the 2020 campaign. Right. You've got your hands on this plan. That sounds like a better title. Put it on my business card. Why not? You have gotten your hands on this plan. Yes. What are the top lines? All right. There is a lot here, but the top lines are this. Here are the numbers that our listeners are probably hearing a lot out there. The first one is $52 trillion. That is the total amount that the federal government would be paying under this plan. Right now, she's saying that over the next decade, Americans and the government and their employers, everybody in America is going to spend $52 trillion anyway on all health care. What Elizabeth Warren is saying is this is not going to raise health

care costs in the aggregate. Instead, the best way to think about this plan is that it redirects streams of funding. At least that's how she would describe it, I think, is redirecting all that funding to the government. The government handles insurance. Now, $52 trillion is a very large number. But to be clear, that is the amount that she's saying we would be spending anyhow. Correct. I think the big price tag is essentially what new federal spending would be there. Right. So, Danielle, what is that? Right. So the other big headline number people will be hearing is 20.5 trillion. Now, that 20.5 trillion she is saying is,

listen, the federal government already would have been paying trillions anyway. All of us would have been paying trillions. The federal government is going to need $20.5 trillion in new revenue. So when you hear people, headlines, including our headlines, saying this is a $20.5 trillion package, that's what we mean. And by package, we mean how much money will need to be raised through taxes. Yeah. Right. I mean, look, these are huge numbers we're talking about. $52 trillion, $20.5 trillion. These are things with a T, right? And we think about federal debt.

That's pretty close to it. But it is a lot of money that's spent on health care anyway. And that's the point of why Democrats talk about this. And Danielle, when she talks about paying for this, she's talking about raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy, essentially, right? So, yes, she would raise taxes on large corporations. She would also have an even higher wealth tax than she has proposed already. So her wealth taxes that she has proposed right now, you've often heard her say two cents on every dollar that the wealthiest Americans have. Well, on the ultra wealthy, she has already proposed a three percent wealth tax. That's people with over a billion. Now, this plan would double that to six percent. So that's a lot of money altogether between corporations and the wealthy. That's six trillion dollars nearly.

So, Asma, you are in Iowa right now and you've been with the Warren campaign. You know, at her rallies, her supporters have been known to chant two cents, two cents, which is about her wealth tax. You think they're going to start chanting six cents? No, not yet. And I mean, part of this is, you know, when you look at the plan as an aggregate, there's a lot of different revenue streams that she's suggesting, right? So part of it is this wealth tax, but part of it is also an employer tax, that all the money that essentially your employer currently pays to your insurance company, Elizabeth Warren is saying that money should be redirected to the government.

So there's sort of different revenue streams. I mean, at this point, Elizabeth Warren knows that this is going to face criticism. I was with her at a press conference this morning where she was specifically asked about pretty pointed criticism that she got from Joe Biden's campaign. They're calling this mathematical gymnastics. They feel like there is no way to do this without increasing taxes for the middle class. Her campaign has been pretty insistent that they think there is a way to do this without raising taxes for the middle class. Middle class families are projected to spend about 11 trillion dollars over the next 10 years reaching into their pockets to pay for premiums, co-pays, deductibles, out-of-network coverage, things that just don't get covered by insurance companies.

I will bring that down to zero. That puts $11 trillion back in the hands of people all across this country. So, Asma, leading into this, you had been reporting that Warren was under a lot of pressure, that she was getting criticism, that people were like, Elizabeth Warren, where is her plan? Does this get her out of political trouble or does it get her into more political trouble, guys? Oh, gosh. Tim, I think that's the question I'm going to be really interested to pursue in the next, you know, few days, few weeks, coming months even maybe. I mean, at this point, it's really hard to assess what the political calculations of all this are. I mean, I think personally, I think it's rather politically risky. It's really bold. She was asked about that in the sense of, do you feel like you needed to do this, needed

to lay out this detailed of a plan around how you're going to pay for this all at this stage in the campaign? You know, she did now at this point. But to your point, I had been hearing from many of her supporters for a while that they felt like maybe she would moderate on this issue as we moved closer, maybe into the primary calendar season, or even maybe if she was to become the nominee. There was this sense, you know, whether it was accurate or not, that she would be pragmatic on the issue. To me now, what we see in this plan is very clear sense that actually she is sort of doubling down on the notion of Medicare for all, making it very clear that she wants to have a single payer health care system that eliminates private insurance. But what's important here is that this plan also creates some daylight between her and Bernie Sanders, right? Because first of all, Bernie Sanders, let's be clear,

does not have a detailed plan for how to pay for Medicare for all. I could say that all day. He does not. He has a bill out there. It does not include pay for us. What he has is a list of options for how to pay for this. And he himself has said, he said it this week, he said, I don't have to come up with that plan right now. We will have a debate in the future. I've put out the options. That's good enough, essentially. Look, I mean, this is politically risky for Warren because on substance and in style. And I'd start with the style because she has needed a plan on this. She needed an answer for the debates.

So the debate's coming up. This will help her be able to have that. Debates often aren't about substance, but if you have no substance, then it really hurts you. So she's got that. That helps her to at least have an answer. There's a risk, though, because Medicare for All overall, when you're talking about getting rid of private health insurance, it's been controversial and people are split in polling. The option that Buttigieg talks about making it a public option or Medicare for all who want it, as he calls it,

is clearly far more popular. The other thing that I hear a lot of Republicans already starting to glom on within this is there's a small slice of Pentagon funding that goes to fund part of Warren's plan. And they're already starting to say, great, in a general election where now Warren appears to be, you know, surging, we can say she's going to take money away from the troops to fund socialism. We're going to leave this part of the conversation here for now. But Asma, real quick before you go, you are out in Iowa for something called the Liberty and Justice Dinner. It is this big event on the political calendar. What are you looking for? And what is it? Yes. So it's called the Liberty and Justice Celebration. It was formerly called the Jefferson Jackson Dinner. But there's a long story there

where a lot of Democrats have been renaming dinners that were named after Jefferson and Jackson. But essentially, you're going to have every major Democrat who's running for president this year here giving speeches already. Des Moines has kind of turned into a political zoo. You have loads of supporters lining the streets, chanting for their candidates. I saw a giant inflatable dog, Warren's dog, Bailey, you know, that she takes around with her sometimes. There's a giant inflatable version of Bailey on a street with two cents around his neck. You got a P-Mobile truck. So it's kind of like a carnival, but for folks who like politics. Well, and four years ago, Hillary Clinton had Katy Perry. So like, who knows? It should be really interesting, too, considering this latest New York Times-Siena poll that came out

showing a real restructuring of what looks like the race in Iowa, where you have Elizabeth Warren in the lead continuing, but Joe Biden falling to fourth, not far behind Pete Buttigieg in third place and Bernie Sanders in second. All right. Well, we will keep watching that. Danielle and Asma, thank you for your reporting. You've got to go do more of it. So we're going to let you go. Thank you. Well, we will keep watching that. Danielle and Asma, thank you for your reporting. You've got to go do more of it. So we're going to let you go. Thank you. Bye bye. And we are going to take a quick break. And when we get back, what we were able to learn about a top White House aide's testimony yesterday in the impeachment inquiry. Support for NPR and the

following message come from ExxonMobil, the company that's working to bring affordable, scalable carbon capture to industries around the world. It's one of the few technologies that could help decarbonize industrial plants by capturing CO2 at its source. Experts agree that it will also play a critical role in reducing global carbon emissions. Find out more at energyfactor.com. Think of NPR's Life Kit as that friend who always has great advice on everything from how to invest to how to get a great workout. We bring you tools to help you get it together. So listen and subscribe to NPR's Life Kit, all guides to get all of our episodes all in one place. And we're back and we are beaming in Franco Ordonez from the White House booth.

I am here. And Sue Davis is in the room. Hey, guys. Hello. And we're back and we are beaming in Franco Ordonez from the White House booth. I am here. And Sue Davis is in the room. Hey, guys. Hello. So yesterday, a top National Security Council staffer named Tim Morrison was testifying in the impeachment inquiry. It was behind closed doors, but we've gotten a little information about what he had to say. Franco, what do we know about his testimony? Yeah, it was a big day. Morrison is the top

official at the White House at the National Security Council for the region. He was on the July 25th call between President Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart. Now, he said he didn't think anything was illegal on the call, but he did have a lot of concerns. One of the biggest things that he did was he corroborated other witnesses' accounts of the Ukraine affair in that he said that an ambassador told a Ukrainian official that the release of military aid was contingent on an investigation of Joe Biden, the former vice president. And that's important because that's the central allegation of the Democrats against President Trump in this inquiry. Yeah, so that would be the elusive,

not so elusive quid pro quo that keeps being talked about. But Sue, Republicans on the Hill seem pretty happy about this testimony. One thing that Republicans that were in the room for the deposition have honed in on is that in part of his open testimony, and Morrison was on the July 25th call, he's the second person this week that Congress heard from who was on the call itself. And he told Congress when he heard the call, he did not believe the president did anything illegally. And that point gave the president's allies, people like Jim Jordan of Ohio, Mark Meadows of North Carolina, cause to come out and say, you know, this was a pretty good day for the president in terms of what we've learned in this investigation. I think it was a great day for America and a great day for

the president. And if any witness would suggest that the impeachment resolution that was passed earlier today should come to a screeching halt, it was this witness. Democrats, I would note, have pointed out, though, that Morrison is not the person that gets to determine propriety or legality or illegality. That's their job. Propriety is not the person that gets to determine propriety or legality or illegality. That's their job. Propriety is not the same as illegality, right? And illegality is not the standard for impeachment. I mean, the president of the United States is the most powerful person in the world. And you can abuse that power in what you ask for, what you do, and certainly not be illegal. Yeah. So the fascinating thing about this impeachment inquiry, this process,

this debate that's happening now is there isn't a lot of debate about the facts. On numerous occasions, people have corroborated the idea that the president was holding up aid and also a White House meeting with the president of Ukraine in order to get investigations that he wanted, investigations into Vice President Biden and into a conspiracy theory about the 2016 election and the DNC servers. But how that is interpreted, whether that is considered a problem, that's where this is all being, that's where it's all coming down to. I mean, what Republicans are doing is trying to frame it into a way of illegality. I mean, Lindsey Graham, it was only, was it last week or the week before that he was talking about, you know, he wouldn't

talk about President Trump's behavior. He wouldn't say it was right or wrong. But he did say, look, I would think differently if you showed me something illegal, if you showed a crime. Now, I think that's just a way of trying to message to the public that that's their bar, and therefore they don't see this as a, quote, impeachable offense. Yeah, I was talking to a Republican today about that vote that happened yesterday, and he said that it was extremely important for the president that the Republicans stuck together in the House, that there was no splintering. Even people who had previously said, oh, well, maybe it would be good to have this investigated, that they didn't

break off. That becomes sort of a stand for the president. I think this is such an interesting part about the politics of this, because if you compare it to other impeachments and the Clinton impeachment is the most recent example. But a lot of times presidents or parties let and allow members of their own party to take positions against them because it's good politics for them. Right. Like sometimes you have to be the outlier in the party and say, I support the investigation, but I might not support impeachment. When there was a Clinton vote on impeachment, 31 Democrats broke with the party to say they supported the investigation because they came from places where it was a good politics. Trump doesn't give anyone within the Republican Party that kind of lateral room to make those political decisions. The White House sets a line that this is a test of party loyalty.

The president sees it that way. And even if you need to vote that way for your own good, he will take that as a personal offense and could use it against you. I think we have to keep in mind that the Republicans who voted the way they voted are the Republicans who are left. You know, the 2018 midterm elections wiped out a whole bunch of the moderates because Democrats took back the House by winning a net 40 seats in a lot of those moderate districts. And only two of those people in those districts decided to vote against the inquiry. So you see where the moderates in the House are. The Republicans who are left understand the polling very well, that 90 percent of Republicans still approve of the president and disagree with this inquiry. Yeah, I mean, I think both of you are right.

I mean, it's you're with me or you're not with me. And I think it also shows the power that President Trump still has. Dominica, you mentioned the 90 percent and no one is willing to take that risk. Despite the shadow that President Trump is under right now, he still has hold of all of them. There was also an important lesson this week in the politics of this when no Republicans broke with the president on that vote. And it's important to remember this going further down the road towards impeachment is, is it even possible for any Republican in Congress to vote against the president and hope to win a Republican primary in 2020?

I mean, if you take a vote against your own sitting president, that is the number one thing you can ask to do to invite a primary challenge. And that is a motivation I think people have to understand that each Republican, rank and file Republican has, even if they have problems with what the president did. Are you willing to take a vote that could almost certainly cost you your seat, assuming you are running for reelection? I mean, some of them could win. I mean, they have lots of money. Certainly, you know, power of incumbency is high, but most of the time they don't even want to take that risk, right? Like if you invite a primary challenge, it means millions of dollars that you then have

to raise. And that's why even do it when you could just not vote for it and then close to reelection. Okay, so the vote yesterday was about sort of laying the roadmap for the path forward in this impeachment inquiry. Part of it was laying out public hearings yet to come. What we know about what's coming next week, though, is more closed door depositions. And there is a long list of people who have been invited. Can we run through some of those names? It seems to me, though, there are at least some that probably won't show up, right? I think that's the theme of the people that we're looking at next week. And I think it is one sign that the private end of this investigation is wrapping up. You tend to call your big witnesses last. So some of the names we're hearing are not only some of

the biggest names in the investigation, but people we also believe are the least likely to show up. People like John Bolton, the former National Security Advisor, others like John Eisenberg, Michael Ellis, who were attorneys on the National Security Council. Yeah, we also have Robert Blair. He is an assistant to the president and senior advisor to the acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney. You also have Brian McCormick. He's the associate director for national resources, energy and science, also at the Office of Management and Budget. Basically, people who have made it pretty clear that they aren't planning to testify, that they see themselves as advisors to the president, and thus should not be required to come in. Russ Voigt's a good example, the acting director of

the OMB. He's a political appointee. He's very loyal to the acting chief of staff, McMulvaney, and the president. They are setting the White House counsel directive not to comply with the investigation as their legal motivation not to show up. Congress obviously rejects that. But they are people saying, I'm not going to show up and testify unless a judge orders me to. And House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff has made clear he's not doing the court fight thing. If you don't show up when Congress asks you to, it's more likely that that that lack of compliance goes into the pile of evidence of possible charges of obstruction in articles of impeachment. He called it the rope-a-dope. He didn't want to get roped into doing this and having this drag out because Democrats have a vested interest in getting this over with sooner rather than later. If we are correct that these are signs that the private side of this inquiry are wrapping up and another sign of that is the House did vote on the resolution this week,

shifting towards a more public setting. We should expect to see announcements of public hearings soon. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi today said that she expected them to begin this month. The thing that Democrats have not said is who they want to hear from and when they want to hear from them. There isn't a lot of time left. The House is out of session this week. The thing that Democrats have not said is who they want to hear from and when they want to hear from them. There isn't a lot of time left. The House is out of session this week. When they come back, they're only scheduled to be in session for 16 days. Of course, they can extend that calendar. But even if they extend it all the way, there's only six weeks until Christmas, which the end of the year is when top Democrats have said they would like to wrap up by. It's not a hard deadline. That's the goal. But that's not a lot of time to do public hearings,

Judiciary Committee proceedings, and improve articles of impeachment across the House floor. Well, sounds like we'll have some fun stuff to talk about around the Thanksgiving table. And we should say, if you want more on impeachment, Up First has a special podcast going up in their feed this weekend. It's hosted by NPR's Steve Inskeep, and it will walk through all of the things that have happened to get us to this point.

It will help you make sense of the characters and what we think is going to happen next. It'll be in the Up First podcast feed first thing Saturday morning and on many of your local NPR stations. All right, we are going to take a quick break. And when we get back, it is time for Can't Let It Go. Support for this podcast and the following message come from Aspen Snowmass, dedicated to meaningful action on climate

change. For over 20 years, Aspen Snowmass has implemented large-scale solutions, from generating clean power to wielding it. They installed the first solar array in the ski industry, the first LEED-certified building, and currently operate the only coal mine methane-to-energy plant in the country. Learn more about what Aspen Snowmass is doing to combat climate change at giveaflake.com. Support also comes from Uber. Uber is committed to safety and to continuously raising the bar to help make safer journeys for everyone. For starters, all drivers are background checked before their first ride and screened on an ongoing basis. And now Uber has introduced a brand new safety feature called Ride Check, which can detect if a trip goes unusually off course and check in to provide

support. To learn more about Uber's commitment to safety, visit uber.com slash safety. How will you remember the past decade in music? I'm Robin Hilton with NPR's All Songs Considered. Join us as we look back at the defining trends and moments of the 2010s, from Beyonce to Bandcamp. Listen twice a week on All Songs Considered from NPR. And we're back. And it's time to end the show with Can't Let It Go,

the part where we talk about the things from the week that we just can't stop talking about, politics or otherwise. Franco. I have a great one. Washington Nationals winning the World Series. Well, yeah. Sure. Domenico is not as enthused as he should be.

Oh, come on, Domenico. That's kind of the whole D.C. baseball thing. Oh, come on. I'm going to sell you. Not only did no one think that the Washington Nationals would be in this place earlier in the year, especially after their star Bryce Harper left to play for another team, but it did something perhaps even more incredible. This series, this victory unified a city, Washington, D.C., that is known

for its incredible divisions. That's pretty amazing. I even stayed up to watch it. Except in game five. That wasn't so unifying. With the lock them up chance? Yeah. I will agree with you there. But the victory, I'm talking about the World Series victory, the streets of Washington. You had Republicans, you had Democrats together chanting, singing Baby Shark. I'm not saying that's a great thing either, but that's what was happening. Oh, it's a great thing. It is the one topic that I find, at least on the Hill, too, that people who are not getting along can still talk about the Nats. Like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid,

who was then the minority leader, even when they were like at absolute blows, they would still like confer and talk about the Nats on the Senate floor. It was like one of the things that people could put everything else aside and have like a common love and a common understanding of. Maybe that does not involve Game 5. Are you suggesting a bipartisan resolution about the Nats? You know what I will say about the Nats, though, and this is about when you come from a place that has no representation in Congress. Normally, when they have these sports bets for the World Series or

the Super Bowl, it's representatives from the places that represent the teams. But we don't have senators or representatives. So it was Tim Kaine, the senator from Virginia, who made the sports bet with Ted Cruz of Texas. I think it was brisket that he won. So Ted Cruz now has to come serve Tim Kaine's staff Texas brisket because Houston lost. But why doesn't anybody in D.C. get the brisket? All right, Sue, what can't you let go of? The thing I can't let go of this week is about how nothing in politics really ever changes. So there's always familiar faces coming back around.

And a name in the news that I thought we might have not had to hear from again, we might be hearing a lot more of. Because Katie Hill, a Democrat from California, announced her resignation this week. And one of the first people to announce that they would be running in that district is a guy by the name of George Papadopoulos. Yes, that George Papadopoulos. Yes, that George Papadopoulos. If you do not remember George Papadopoulos, although I'm sure we have spoken about him at some point in this podcast, he was a tangential figure in the Trump campaign in 2016 who helped trigger the FBI investigation into the Trump campaign and possible contacts with the Russian government because he had drinks over in Europe. And that

conversation helped trigger this investigation. He just has a book out about how he was in this. The president's tweeted out about it. But I think we could be seeing a wave and we've seen other people and sort of the Trump orbit who are now running for Congress. Right. And to me, the question is, are sort of these Trump affiliates going to be able to rise and run in the Trump era? OK, so I have two things about this. One, George Papadopoulos says that he was framed. He was set up by the CIA. That's what his book's about. Yeah, that's what his book's about. But he was convicted. He was the first person convicted in the Robert Mueller investigation. Indeed, he was convicted. Here is my first person convicted in the Robert Mueller investigation. Indeed, he was convicted.

Here is my other question. He's not from California? Like, he doesn't even... I thought he lived in Chicago. I'm so confused. You know, given this district, in the California district it is, I think George Papadopoulos from Webster has more of a chance of winning. Solid Webster joke, Domenico. Look it winning. Solid Webster joke, Domenico. Y'all look it up.

Solid Webster joke. Domenico, what can't you let go of? I can't let go of the hero dog. I mean, the hero dog in the ISIS raid this week and his name was declassified this week is Conan. It was injured in the line of fire and still out in the field. But no, allegedly the dog is coming to the Whiteified this week. It's Conan. It was injured in the line of fire and still out in the field. Oh, but no, allegedly the dog is coming to the White House next week. Oh, that's right.

Yeah. There was also this weird thing that the president tweeted out, which was a photoshopped image of himself awarding a medal of freedom to the dog. Yeah, that was weird. That was weird. But hey, now he can do it in real life. They do a lot of those Photoshoppings. I'm not sure they're going to allow the president to get too close to the dog's mouth. That's a killer dog. A Belgian Malinois. They're going to have special secret service for that one.

Belgian Malinois are amazing. They are. He is a very good boy. New York Post kind of won the headline war with that one. They had zero bark 30. I loved it. Tim, what can't you let go of this week? So Halloween, it was just last night. And I don't know if you guys remember, like a few months ago, the New York Times did this thing where they asked all of the candidates about their comfort foods and things like that. So there was a follow on

where they asked them about the best and worst Halloween candy. A very controversial question. Very controversial. Yeah. And there is division in the field, let us say. So, I mean, there's a widespread agreement that Reese's peanut butter cups are pretty awesome. But Kamala Harris says candy corn is the worst. Then Andrew Yang says candy corn. There are better candies and better corn. Oh, Michael Bennett says the worst is candy corn. But get this. John Delaney says that candy corn is the best.

It reminds me that Halloween is here. And then Bill Weld, who is a Republican running for president, says, and this is kind of a weird quote, the best Halloween candy is candy corn, as a few bags of it make my wife happy for weeks. I have to say, this candy corn debate has gone back a very long time. This is the most controversial Halloween candy. It even divided my household because my daughter was like, candy corn's the best. And my son was like, ew, candy corn's gross. So I just tell them all

don't yuck on someone else's yum. I actually surprised that the debate is not about marshmallow peeps. That's a different holiday. That divides families over Easter, not Halloween. So guys, favorite candy, worst candy. Let's go. I gotta say Reese's

Peanut Butter Cups. Best, right? Best. With some peanut butter on top. Oh, man. The miniatures or the bigger ones? You guys are going to get mad at me again, but I like the Easter egg Reese's Peanut Butter Cups. You were just like Mr. Easter. All right, we get it.

You like Easter candy, Franco. Jesus. It's Halloween. They're so awesome. I like any of the chocolates. I think like Baby Ruth's, Snickers. But in the bite size, that's what makes Halloween so awesome. You can have so many of them.

You don't have to have a whole candy bar. I'm going to make a super weird, controversial statement here. One of my favorite candies, but I think it's because I grew up in the Philadelphia area. Have you guys ever had peanut chews? Yes. I like peanut chews. I love peanut chews. The caramel and the nuts. That is a regional difference.

It is weird and I love them, but I would say if I got some peanut chews in my trick-or-treat bag, that was a solid. Unsurprisingly, gummies are my favorite. Gummies. That is a wrap. Candy wrapper for today. Yeah, I know. Mom jokes. And let's end this week by thanking the team that puts the show together.

Our executive producer is Shirley Henry. Our editors are Mathani Maturi and Eric McDaniel. Our producer is Barton Girdwood. Our production assistant is Chloe Weiner. Thanks to Lexi Schapittle, Dana Farrington, Brandon Carter, and Elena Burnett. I'm Tamara Keith. I cover the White House. I'm Franco Ordonez, and I also cover the White House.

I'm Susan Davis. I cover Congress. And I'm Domenico Montan cover the White House. I'm Franco Ordonez, and I also cover the White House. I'm Susan Davis. I cover Congress. And I'm Domenico Montanaro, senior political editor and correspondent. And thank you for listening to the NPR Politics Podcast.