The Ricochet Podcast - At Large And Nationwide

Episode Date: January 5, 2013

First podcast of 2013 and it’s a doozy: Rob Long checks in from Paris and New York, Peter reveals his secret workout routine, and James explains how to have a successful New Year’s Eve. Later, AEI president Arthur Brooks joins to discuss the fiscal cliff and what Boehner should have done. Then, Governor Mitch Daniels joins us for his final interview as the chief executive of Indiana. Source

Activate program. What is it about right to work that you oppose so much? Get the f*** out of my face! You do your work, and we will do our best. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall. It's the Ricochet Podcast with Peter Robinson in California and Rob Long in New York. I'm James Lilacs in Minneapolis, Minnesota. And our guests today include Arthur Brooks from the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.

and Governor Mitch Daniels in Indiana. Yes, as ZZ Top put it, we're bad, we're nationwide. Welcome, everyone. It's Ricochet Podcast number 150. Starting the new year with what? Well, if you go to Ricochet, you'll see that we're not exactly all full of politics. Some of the biggest threads are greatest movie endings and top favorite three Pink Floyd songs. But, you know, we may not be interested in politics, but politics is still interested in us. After this last grueling week, we have kicked the can off the fiscal cliff. Haven't solved everything. Haven't made anybody happy. The mess continues. But 2013,

we hope, is when you and Ricochet will be the place where we find solutions. And for that, we, of course, go to our sages, our founders, Rob Long and Peter Robinson. Hi, guys. Hey, how are you? Rob, you spent a few days in Paris, correct? I spent a week in Paris. It was fantastic. And you happen, I know, because you mentioned this just before we went on, you happen just to have finished or perhaps still to be nibbling a croissant. I am in – I just – I'm a Hoover. I think nibbling is a very grand way to put what I was doing. So a man who just spent a week in Paris and just bought a croissant in Manhattan is in a position to tell us what he looks for in a croissant.

I'll tell you what I look for. It's got to shatter. It's got to be crispy on the outside. It's got to look like, yeah, the butter, it's a pâte frite, you know, it's a thousand leaves, they say, in the dough. And they're not hard to make.

The dough is usually made everywhere. It's a machine to make it because you can keep it at the right temperature. The trick is just to keep the dough cold. While you make it. You keep it very, very cold while you're forming the croissant, while you're rolling it out. And then it should be eaten fresh. The minute they're a day old, they're no good no matter where you get them.

Got it. You like them sweet or just sort of neutral? The flavor should be neutral. The flavor should be butter. The best, worst croissant I ever had was in Hanoi in Vietnam. They still look – Hanoi, the old town, Hanoi looks like somebody dropped a bomb on New Orleans, the French Quarter. It has all that same architecture. And there are a couple old French bakeries there from the French colonial times.

And there's one guy making, it's impossible to make a croissant in temperature that humid. But it was delicious anyway. I gave my daughter a piece of toast this morning from the English muffin toasting bread, which I buy because it actually tastes stale right fresh from the package. And that's the great thing about it. When it actually does go stale, there's no noticeable change

in the quality of the bread itself. Yes, well, these gustatory delights aside, Rob, you must have been doing something in New York that was related to the exciting and thrilling world of media. Apparently not. Peter, out there in California. You just caught that out, actually. It was a thrilling world of media.

Yes. What were you doing in the thrilling world of media? Oh, in New York? Nothing. I did Red Eye a couple days ago. And I might do Red Eye again this week. I'm not sure. Alright. And what were you doing in Paris? Rob? Goofing off.

Eating and drinking. It was shocking. Well, Peter, your New Year's we all want to hear. We imagine that you and the clan were all gathered around the tree singing all the traditional New Year songs, toasting the year to come with hot mold wassail or whatever you do. Wrong, wrong, wrong. I had one of the most miserable New Year's that I have ever had in my entire life. And you touched on the very point. The Klan was gone.

The Klan fractured. My wife took three of the kids up to the mountains to ski with friends. I stayed behind because I thought I was being magnanimous. Two of my boys didn't want to go. There were going to be events down here. They just wanted to stay. And I thought they were old enough to make up that. But they're not old enough to be left in the house alone.

So I stayed back to oversee two of the boys thinking that we would play chess. And of course, I don't know what I was thinking. Both of those boys had friends in town. They were out of here. I spent New Year's all by myself in a dark, cold house because, of course, I'm so cheap, I turn down the thermostat if there's nobody to heat the house for except me. It was miserable, lonely, dark, depressing, and cold. How was your New Year's?

Well, much better than that. My daughter went away to sleep over, so we didn't have the Klan gathering. I know exactly how you feel about that. My wife, the only thing that can actually slow her down from a constant stream of diligent work is if I dump a 2,000-piece puzzle on the table. It has the same effect as shining a flashlight into a deer. I mean, that's all she did. She went into a puzzle zone for about three or four hours, bent over the table. It has the same effect as shining a flashlight into it. I mean, she just, that's all she did. She went into a puzzle zone for about three or four hours, bent over the table. I wrote, I had a grand time writing and texting to my daughter about the approach of the New Year's,

which I hate. I hate the holiday. The whole New Year's thing is just methadone for people who are addicted to the holidays, period. After Christmas, the tremendous crashing sugar rush crash at the end of Christmas, you've got to have something to just limp through to the end of the year. Who cares? Nothing changes. Rent is due. That's just about it when the calendar changes. And to see a whole bunch of people jumping up and down in Times Square unenthusiastically to the unenthusiastic music of Taylor Swift while Ryan Seacrest reminds everybody he's no Dick Clark.

No, no, no, thank you. So I... I agree, I agree. It's a terrible holiday. It's just exactly what you spend it on. Or in Paris. And the other thing is, is that I don't like... Or in Paris, Rob says.

Minneapolis or Paris if one has one. By the way, speaking of... Has anybody seen, anybody other than me, seen Les Miserables? No, I haven't. Not yet. It's great, though. Oh, I loved it. It's getting mixed reviews.

Some people hate it, but it seems most people just love it. Nobody seems to have posted anything or none of the professional critics has written a review saying, eh, they either love it, which most do, or they hate it. But I'm telling you,

I just thought it was great, so great that I went out and bought Les Miserables. And I'm now on page 200 or so, which means I'm just beginning to get into the book of 1500 pages. I'm thinking in French, Rob. And I don't and my French isn't even that good. You know, folks, and that's that's interesting, Peter, that you should bring that up because it's a daunting book. And it really is. Not a lot of people can spend the time to sit down and read it. It's thick. We heard today that Barnes & Noble is having trouble because their nook isn't selling.

And if you had it on the nook, your nook would weigh another pound and a half. But if you wanted to hear that, for example, instead of actually reading it, you could pop an Audible cassette into your car or get some streaming stuff from the Internet, and that's when Audible.com comes in handy. I wanted to remind everybody that they are, of course, the proud sponsor of this podcast, and they have over 100,000 downloadable titles across all types, literature, audio versions of the New York Times bestseller list, nonfiction, politics.

If you want to get something in your head, but you don't necessarily have the time to read it, Audible is where you want to go. And, of course, as you know, Audible's offering a free audio book to give you a chance to try out the service. Once you're hooked, you'll stay. You might go to audiblepodcast.com slash ricochet, audiblepodcast.com slash ricochet and claim your free one. Well, enough of our blathering palaver here. We need to talk to some people. Wait, wait. You didn't ask what we're listening to on audiblebooks.com. And I thought if only to tell me, Peter, I know you're on the 27th version of Patrick.

But it's not true. As she was driving the kids back from the mountains, my wife downloaded and listened to most of, but not quite all of, The Life of Pi. And yesterday we finished listening to it together, cleaning the kitchen, putting the decorations away after the holidays. This is one wonderful use for Audible Books. You can put it on and a family can listen to it together. And then last night we went to see the film The Life of Pi, which I have to say is mind-blowingly beautiful. I agree.

I'm not so sure about the narrative exactly. I'm still thinking that over. It's faithful to the book in the sense that it's a very beautifully done movie, but the effects, the sense of beauty, the depth, that film does things as a medium that I have never seen on a screen before

in my life. Rob? I agree. I think that's a beautiful picture, and beyond's a beautiful picture. And beyond being a beautiful picture, it redeems computer graphics and film graphics in my mind. I don't have to watch any more of these dreary, dull, horribly violent, kind of nihilistic superhero movies

that everything explodes. And I thought the story was gorgeous. And I just, I love it. It has unknowns in it and a great story and a moving story and a couple of really moving moments. You sign me up. My hesitation on the, that little hesitation on the narrative

was simply because the same two loser sons who deserted me on New Year's went to see Life of Pi with us last night and they were shifting and getting a little, my wife and I thought it was magnificent. The boys actually wanted it. Some shoot them up and gore.

So in other words, just think twice. If you have a teenage son, there's no shortage of that. There's no shortage of that in other places in the cineplex, but what a picture in any event, audible books, life of pie.

There's an abridged version. We were listening to the unabridged version there. Back to you, James. Well, If there's an abridged version, we were listening to the unabridged version. There. Back to you, James. Well, I'm just thinking that I'm looking around for an audible version of the script for Ghost Rider 2. Because having watched that cinematic masterpiece, I'm convinced that there are so many philosophical nuances that I missed. I want to hear it again in audible form. So I haven't found it quite yet. Your teenage sons would love Ghost Rider 2. It's essentially Nick Cage with his head on fire.

So that's my cultural contribution. Rob, do you have something, or may we get to our guest? Well, I mean, mine would be what I've been suggesting for a while, which is Ken Levine's autobiography, The Me Decade by Me. Very, very funny. I gave it away a couple times for Christmas, and I've heard only great response back. So if you're looking to laugh, that's what you want to look at. I'm waiting for an audio version of the book that I'm reading now, which is What to Expect When No One's Expecting by Jonathan Last. It's a piece, so far, it's a great book about America's demographic problems. Yeah, that's right. We've got demographic problems, too. Is there any area in which we don't accept energy? But, you know, energy is good. Speaking of which, we welcome to the podcast our first guest of 2013. And I hate odd-numbered years. Just let me say that. That's one of the reasons I wasn't crazy about this new year.

I don't like odd-numbered years. They're like shaving a haircut without the two bits. I like round numbers. I'm going to be on the edge of my chair for the entire year. Anyway, Arthur Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute since January 1st, 2009. Previous, he was the Lewis A. Bantle Professor of Business and Government Policy at Syracuse U. He's the author of 10 books, hundreds of articles on topics ranging from the economics of the arts to military operations research. His most recent book is the New York Times bestseller, The Road to Freedom, How to Win the Fight for Free Enterprise. Before pursuing his work in public policy, Mr. Brooks spent 12 years as a professional horn, I'm sorry, French horn player for the City Orchestra of Barcelona and other ensembles. I hope we can talk to him about that

again. We welcome him back to the podcast, Arthur Brooks. Hey, Arthur, welcome back to the podcast. James Lilacs here. We were just discussing how much we're just full of politics. We're done with the whole thing. You were a horn player. What's the best horn part? When that thing lands on your music stand and you say, finally, I get to play Mahler's first. Finally. I mean, the French horn is one of those instruments that you look like you're punching it out of anger, but it's such a beautiful sound. What's your favorite part? Well, yeah, it's a beautiful sound on a good day. But let's be honest, there's a reason I'm an economist now, you guys.

You know what? The one thing that I learned from the – I mean, I did it for full time for a living for 12 years. Everything in life is easy when you're not holding a French horn. Okay, give us your most embarrassing entrance. Well, I'll give you my most embarrassing moment as a French horn player. I literally fell off the stage at Carnegie Hall during a performance. Off the front of the stage. And the whole audience gasped.

That brings up the question of what the French horn player was doing up front. Yeah, I mean, I was too close, and I was standing on some stairs or something that collapsed, you know, right down into the audience. It was, yeah, I mean, that was kind of how the whole latter part of my career is a metaphor for it, I think. Well, too bad it wasn't one of those Wagnerian pieces where there's offstage horns. I mean, it's stretching the concept a little bit, but well, no, you're an economist now and our go-to guy for some of these issues as to whether or not we're moving in the right direction, what the fiscal cliff accomplished, whether or not the taxes were too much or too low.

Tell us your take on the deal. You know what? I think America is doing just great. What? Sorry. I'm not. Arthur, you just fell off the stand. I know.

I know. You see, the problem is I fell on my head. It's terrible. I mean, the fiscal cliff deal stinks. It's amazing. The Republicans got totally rolled. Okay, Arthur, two people we both like. Paul Ryan in the House voted for the deal. Marco Rubio in the Senate voted against it. Who did right? It's a complicated question. I think probably Marco did the right thing because he's voting on principle. And, you know, Paul did the practical thing. So I can understand the argument on either side. But what basically happened was that the Obama administration,

who everybody thought was kind of policy inept and all this sort of stuff, are wrong. He had a very practical strategy of raising taxes on the upper echelons of the income base in two steps. One was the part that was just spoils of war. It was raise the top rates. I don't care if it's bad for the economy. This is my moral philosophy, is to hurt those filthy millionaires and billionaires. And the second was the kind of tax reform that raises taxes on rich people that economists usually like, which is to say, get rid of distortionary deductions and exemptions and all that kind of stuff. Well, he said, and he's pretty smart, he said, we're going to raise the rates first. That's what we're going to do because because that's, you know, pure spoils of war. We can get away with that in the first round. And then, in exchange for the stuff that the Republicans

want, like spending less so we don't ruin the country, we're going to ask them to raise rates again the smart way. And, you know, the Obama people have as much as come out openly and said that, I mean, I was on a CNBC show today with Jared Bernstein, and he said pretty much exactly that, that they're going to come around the second time. And if we want any spending control, any entitlement reform at all, it's going to mean that the Republicans, I should say the rich, are going to have to pay, as they say, their fair share. It's like Groundhog Day. They're going to come again and again and again.

And will they define rich down each time? Yeah, for sure. And here's the part that the Republicans haven't quite absorbed yet. They actually don't want to do entitlement reform. I mean, it's kind of crocodile tears. Yeah, I know. We're spending too much on entitlements, and it's bad for the country, we have to find some way to get this thing under control. No, actually, you don't. And the reason is because if you don't get it under control, that will be the kind of crisis that will provoke the real money pump

on the American economy. And the truth of the matter is, you can't get enough money out of rich people. There isn't enough money in rich people to cover this thing. The only source of real cash that can take us to government spending 50% of American GDP, which is the gold standard for social democrats, it's what they do in France, the only way you can do it is by increasing taxes dramatically on the middle class. That's where all the money is.

So if we have lots of crash and burn type entitlement problems in the next three to four years, 100% chance they're going to try to staple a VAT onto the existing tax code. Explain the term. A VAT, a value-added tax, is basically a national sales tax. And it's what they do in Europe when they really want to turn on the money pump. That's how you get real money out of the middle class. And all we're doing now is a warm-up act.

I mean, Obama is basically by raising rates and all this stuff to the dreaded millionaires and billionaires, he's basically saying, hey, everybody, look over there. And on the other side, what he's doing is warming us up for what the real engine of tax revenue is going to be. I mean, isn't that the big problem that

the Republicans have had, almost the strategic problem, is that we're obsessed with spending and the size of government because we think a trillion dollar, 19 trillion dollar, 100 trillion dollar debt is insane, whereas the other side says, no, it's not. As I've said for years,

we don't have a debt problem. We have a taxation problem. If you're a liberal, you can simply raise taxes. And as long as that's the plan, we seem to be talking past each other. How do we get the American people to be afraid of something that Barack Obama hasn't done but we know he's planning to do? Well, part of that starts with actually standing up for principle. I mean, the Republicans have been really terrible about talking about why anything actually matters. Since the 1980s, they've been the party not of saying, we want to increase your freedom.

They've been more the party of, we want to lower your taxes. Now, the reason that Reagan wanted to lower everybody's taxes was because that was going to raise everybody's freedom. But they've gotten into this whole talking about the means instead of talking about the ends, until they've actually shot the bullet of lowering the taxes. Now, 49% of Americans have no federal income tax liability. We should just say you can't lower their taxes anymore. And as long as we have this monomania of the ends as opposed to the means as opposed to the moral ends of what we're

trying to do, we can't actually talk about what matters. We can't come in the American public and say, look, they are taking away your freedom. Look, we're going to put vulnerable people at greater risk. And look, this isn't fair, which is a true moral argument that we need to be making. Hey, Arthur, Peter Robinson here again. Wall Street Journal today has their lead editorial is Boehner's second chance. And let me just quote a little bit here. Mr. Boehner needs a plausible counter strategy. Recognize that he can't govern from the House,

but use the leverage of spending and sequester and the power of the purse to see what few policy victories can be had. Find some programs and special interests to showcase and defend. of spending and sequester and the power of the purse to see what few policy victories can be had. Find some programs and special interests to showcase and defend. Take on corporate welfare. Unleash members of the House and Senate, the Toomeys, the Hensarlings, and the Johnsons to make the GOP's growth and reform case to the public. That actually sounds like very, that's, that's, that's the thundering editorial about what Boehner can do to save the nation, a little of this and a little of that and try for this and play for time. That's all he does is play for time. The Republicans, they need to have the courage to dream incremental dreams, don't you think?

Well, wait a minute. Wait a minute, Peter. But what's he supposed to do? He's only speaker. That's my. But what's he supposed to do? He's only Speaker of the House. That's my question. What is he supposed to do? I fall silent. I fall silent.

It's good advice to Boehner and the Republicans to tell them to do what they can do as opposed to passing on the things where they can have more leverage on policy.

I mean, that's just manifestly wise advice. But the big thundering editorial really needs to be, what do we stand for? And you know what? They need to learn from Barack Obama. And here's the big case study. Obama's towering achievement was going to be Kennedy-esque, as in Ted Kennedy-esque, changes to the health care system.

Not all the way to single payer, but Obamacare was going to be a really big deal. It was going to be his legacy, so much so that he was actually willing to even call it Obamacare, a term that probably one of you guys coined to be pejorative. And okay, now that's really unpopular with the American public. It still is. He pushed it through. He said, I don't care if it's unpopular. Republicans can do a lot of things that they'll probably get blamed for. They can do really hardcore things like going over the fiscal cliff, for example, and get

blamed for it. But if it's the right thing to do, it's the right thing to do. It's not like the Republican Party is going to cease to exist. You've got to take some hits once in a while. I mean, this is what leadership is all about. You do unpopular things when they're right, and then you have to bring the public along. Easy for me to say. I just want a think tank.

But still, isn't that what we want from leaders? Peter, again, I'm going back. I mentioned the Ryan versus Rubio because I actually have been thinking about this a lot over the last couple of days, and my thinking is sort of beginning to crystallize maybe. You let me know what you think of my thinking, which is that some large number of Republicans in the House and Senate just have to do the best they can to engage in a delaying action, to make sure that what takes place isn't as bad as it might be. And yet that necessary as it is, necessary as what Paul Ryan did the day before yesterday is, that is not going to represent or provide a hope for the nation in the future, let alone

a hope for the Republican Party. Some substantial Republicans, I would even argue our primary representatives, the largest, loudest, most vivid voices have to stay outside the deal-making and say no, no, no, no. It's all wrong. And that means that what Marco Rubio did is in one way or another, even though he was – there's a lot of – he's grandstanding. He's not paying the price that you pay as a responsible representative, a responsible member of the Senate.

You have to engage in the hard work of governance and negotiation. Yes, many of them do. But we need a Marco Rubio. We need a Ted Cruz. And here's where I'm going with this. I think we need to look or we will find ourselves looking especially to the governors who are able to accomplish Republican conservative governors in their states and have real legitimacy in saying what is happening in Washington is wrong wholesale, wholesale. So that's what my crystallizing thinking is. In some way, Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio were both right. But what Paul Ryan did represents the model for the holding action. It's a necessary holding action.

But all it will do is represent a slow retreat. The Marco Rubio position is the only position from which to prepare for an attack, a counterattack. What do you think? Yeah, no, I think that's right. Once again, one position was the principled position. The other was the practical position. And ultimately, you would hope that in your career as a politician, that most of your decisions could be both principled and practical at the same time. But in point of fact, it can't always be thus. And you do need people who are really principled. That was Jim DeMint's gig. You know, in the Senate, everybody was mad at him all the time because he did what he

thought was right, no matter what, all the time. That's sort of Rand Paul. That's what he does now. And there are certain people that can do it and they can pull it off. There are a lot of votes, quite frankly, that people will make, and they hope that the vote goes the other way in the Senate or in the House. I mean, even voters do this. You know, they vote for some defensive marriage dealio, and they hope it actually loses. And this is just how things are complicated along these lines.

But that's right. We actually have to have somebody who says, I'm going to make decisions on the basis of a better future, of what I think the world ought to look like, or what I think the country ought to look like. And, you know, sometimes you have to be practical. But this is one case in which I think being principled in the long term will have lower costs, and being strategic actually might have much higher costs. And the reason I think that is I look back over the past 75 years at the data,

and we've had a highly practical Republican Party for a long time. Look, you've got to govern. You can't just obstruct all the time. You've got to get stuff done. You've got to get these bills moving along, and our highways need to get paid for. God knows we need more crop insurance and all that junk that those guys are voting for every single year. So the result is that the Republican Party has effectively become a party that stands for administering the welfare state 5.2% more efficiently than the Democrats. Right. That's what it's kind of come down to. And worst of all, when the Republicans actually, in the odd cases where they have substantial power, that's when people like us stop paying attention.

And if you look at the data, you find that all of the measures of social democracy, economic growth measures, government percentage of GDP, GDP to debt ratio, all that stuff, it's going up faster under the Republicans than it is under the Democrats because the watchdogs, the citizens, the think tanks, the right-wing groups are not holding people to account. That's what happens when you're too practical. Arthur, James Lattelix here. I've got a question from the chat room, and Rob's going to love this one because it's a sort of theatrical stunt that he just, he really caught us doing.

The question's from Just a Mom. Just a Mom wants to know, why don't the House Republicans just pass bill after bill after bill and then come out every day and tell the public what they've passed and hang that around the Senate's neck? Do you think that would work? No, say that again. I want to make sure

I understood. What should they do? The House Republicans who just passed bill after bill, budget bills, spending bills, cut this, cut that, and then do it every day and then come out and tell the public what they've done. So it's up to the Senate to do something about that. Would that sort of strategy work? So this gets into kind of the stuff of the inner workings of the Senate and House that ordinary Americans shouldn't have to know because it's awful and evil and boring.

But basically, the House can pass something every 30 seconds. Something it takes the House to do in 30 seconds takes a year, practically, for the Senate. It's a super-deliberative body set up with rules that are such that if you pass something in an hour in the House, it could literally take half the week in the Senate. So one of the ways to tie up the Democratic-controlled Senate, if you're

being kind of strategic about this, is in continuing resolutions for the budget, which is to say, the resolutions that make sure that there's enough money to keep operating on a very short-term basis, start salami slicing the government smaller and smaller and smaller, $2 billion here, $4 billion there, $8 billion there, and have the House just tie up the Senate trying to decide on these things constantly over two and three and four months, and in that way start to try to reduce the size of government. It has some inherent logic to it.

Arthur, Peter here, one more time. Yeah. You run the American Enterprise Institute. It runs me, actually. It runs you. So on the one hand, the American Enterprise Institute is a think tank. On the other hand, you're located right there in Washington, D.C. You are subject to many of the same pressures to which a Paul Ryan or a Marco Rubio is subjected. That is to say the folks who are good enough to fund your operation in one way or another want results.

And I'd be willing to bet that they want results now and they want results five years from now. They want tactical successes and strategic successes. I'd be willing to bet you're operating in just the kind of ambiguous, demanding environment that Ryan and Ruby are operating in. What's the right way for AEI to conduct itself over the next few years? Well, I've thought about that a lot, as you can imagine. And the way that we've tried to address it is by changing our mission statement, which we did four years ago. We changed the mission statement to be one that's entirely aspirational. And it basically sets us up as an organization that cares less about what happens this month and more what

happens to America in the long run. So our mission statement is that we're a community of scholars and supporters, because this takes all of our scholars and it takes all of the people who give us their widow's mic, which is about a thousand people, mostly individuals. And we're dedicated to three principles. And by the way, we should mention, I know some of those individuals. When you include the supporters as part of the mission statement, these are some very shrewd, tough, smart, experienced business figures who number among your support. Sorry, go ahead. That's right. No, that's right. And incidentally, that's one of the reasons when I have to make a major corporate decision on behalf of a company,

usually I call a donor and ask for advice. Right. Because these guys have done things much bigger. You're exactly right. But we're a community of scholars and supporters dedicated to the proposition that expanding liberty, increasing individual opportunity, and fighting for free enterprise give the most people the best life. That's what we stand for.

And that means, basically, we are responsible, as far as we're concerned, about envisioning this country not just a month into the future, but primarily into the decades that follow. And that actually guides a lot of what we do. You know, we can say things that are a lot more immediately controversial. We can have more politicians who are angry at us. And quite frankly, we care a lot less if this president doesn't want to take our calls than we would be in the past and that a lot of other think tanks still do today. So a long-term focus is really what we've dedicated ourselves to. And our donors appreciate it. It's kind of an interesting thing

that I was unsure how this would play. I knew it was the right thing to do, but it was quite unsure at the very beginning. But our donors have rewarded us with it. We've grown about 60 percent over the past four years. Well, in the long term, of course, we're all dead, but I hope we die in a country that's as free as the one into which we were born. And we wish you luck. That's very Keynesian of you, I have to say. I call for a lecture on you. By the way, did you know that Keynes was a failed trombonist?

We're now in the long run and Keynes is dead. That's right. Exactly. That's one grave we can all dance on. Well, no doubt his decomposing corpse primed some pumps for microbes elsewhere. Arthur, we thank you for coming by to the podcast again. Thank you.

We want to have you on as soon as possible to discuss this, because none of this is going away, and epic battles still loom in the near future. So take care. Enjoy Washington, the one prosperous place in the country, from what I understand. Well, the company is doing great here, as in the U.S. government. So it is keeping us all afloat in these derivative industries. Thank you. Thank you

for your support. Take care, Arthur. Thank you. Happy New Year. Thanks, guys. See you later. Bye-bye. So in the chat room, they're gushing, and I think rightly so, over Justin Mom's idea. The idea that you would just completely...

Essentially, it's like it's pouring glue onto Harry Reid's hands and keeping them clapped. I think that's a good idea, sort of – not a bad impulse. My more practical suggestion would be I just don't understand why all of this pork barrel, all the nonsense in this bill came out after the Republicans bit the bullet and did it. It does seem to me that the Republicans have – it's a good thing to retreat to what they can do now and to be practical. I mean I'm on the practical side of this thing and to be the reformists and the mockers of big spending liberals. Look what happens when you start pointing out the pork though. You have Chris Christie of all people pitching a fit because there's $30 billion worth of pork in that thing. That's extremely helpful, Mr. C.

Thanks an awful lot. See you in 2016. Perhaps not. But that's what? But that's okay. That's all right. So what? We still can make fun of Hollywood subsidies.

We can still make fun of algae. We can still make fun of all those things. We can still cast the federal government instead of a savior as a spendthrift. And that's where I think we've lost the thread of that. Barack Obama very cleverly and carefully has made it all about seniors and students. He keeps saying it, seniors and students, seniors and students, old people, young people. He keeps saying that. And the students and the seniors hear that. And that, boy, believe me, he won seniors in Florida and he won students. It's not a coincidence.

And he's done it very, very successfully. And we have to retreat a little bit because we – but we have a good story to tell. We're the ones who are going to say you can't spend $80 million on algae. Not so bad for – It's not helpful when somebody with the prominence of Christie, both corporeally and media-wise, gets out there and starts slamming the Republicans for not just spending huge amounts of money that have nothing to do with the pressing problem. That's a perfect example of why we're in the situation we do is because we lard up these bills with things that have nothing to do with highways to seniors and students. So that's what I mean. Chris isn't helping at all distill the brand down into that idea that you so rightly say is the Republicans' advantage. Well, I think that's a first step.

We cannot be, I think Arthur's correct, that we have cast ourselves over time as the more efficient caretakers of the liberal welfare state. I said that for 40, 50 years we've been losing that battle. And so to get back to where we want to be, it's going to be very, very hard. Anyway, I think my audio was going in and out when Arthur was there. That was what I was going to say to him. Oh, interestingly, we thought you were completely absent during that entire conversation. We didn't hear a word from you. No, I kept talking.

Oh, is that so? I was just talking. I'm having a lovely monologue by myself. We've learned here today, if we've learned anything, my friends, there's a fundamental inconsistency between Skype and the croissant. Apparently, there's some electromagnetic field generated by the croissant. I choose the croissant. They're calling it in the chat room a DDoS.

I love this. I believe if you keep sending bills to the Senate, a DDoS. I think the first D is distributed denial of service or dedicated denial of service. Somebody help me out here. It's a computer term for shutting down a website by just flooding it with requests. I have to confess. At the moment, I'm having trouble calling up the chat room, so I'm not able to follow this conversation. However, I myself would draw a distinction between passing bills in the House to show the country what Republicans stand for, which strikes me as a very, very, very good idea on the one hand and on the other, passing bills in the House to try to tie up the Senate. The rules of the Senate are such that the majority leader

gets to bring to the floor whatever he wants to bring to the floor and to bottle up in committee whatever he doesn't want to bring to the floor. So passing 20 bills an hour in the House will not slow down the work of the Senate unless Harry Reid wishes it to slow down the work of the Senate, which he certainly will not. Just as a procedural matter, it is true that if Harry Reid believes he must take up an item in the Senate, the budget item, I presume there will have to be reconciliation. No, there won't be reconciliation because the House just enacted what the Senate voted. But whenever something comes over from the House that Harry Reid has to deal with, it is slower in the Senate. But he only deals with what he wants to deal with

and he isn't going to cut Republicans in the House any slack. That's for sure. Still, it's a way of demonstrating our agenda at the national level. We should enact what we would. At one of these Christmas parties, this was one of the most heartbreaking conversations I had over the holidays. I ran into a fellow. He probably wouldn't mind if I named him, but I won't because I'm not completely sure. But very prominent businessman here in Northern California. He came up through the Bain organization, was a good friend of Mitt Romney's, and was in Washington during the last couple of just told me what they were planning to do on day one and day two and day three. And it broke your heart because the difference between what Mitt Romney would have done and what was actually happening couldn't have been more stark. In my judgment, the House of Representatives should be doing exactly the same thing before the entire nation, making clear the difference between what's actually happening and what would happen if Republicans were in charge. But do you think the nation would find

out about it? I mean, even if John Boehner set himself on fire when he was delivering these bills to the Senate, that would be mainly the story there that he set off the sprinkler system, not the bill that he was carrying. Well, no, I – That's the one point on which I'm not pessimistic. Ricochet is clearly taking over America. That's right. Anything they do – I think that's a good question.

I think that's a good question for James, but I also feel like that is the – that strategy, if done clearly and with discipline, and that's always the hardest part part with the cut the congress the discipline part that that strategy is almost our only hope because we do i think once you start negotiating and you can we are connected in a bit in a position of extreme weakness not strength is a strength of the robin side it's all weakness wall-to-wall

and what you start negotiating you start horse trading once you start horse trading with somebody who's richer and more powerful than you, you always lose. So just the simple art of war would suggest that instead of meeting our enemy head on, we do something different and we cause a different kind of commotion. And that would seem to me to be a wise strategy. Very clean, very precise, very disciplined bills from the House that enumerate the Republican position on all these issues, that the people can read, and if they don't read it, you can always cut through the clutter if you try, if you're disciplined. But what we try to do now

is we're trying to do everything. We're trying to lead, we're trying to be a co-presidency, we're trying to do all sorts of stuff, and you know what? We're trying to boil the ocean, and we cannot do that. Small things, small, clear things first. That's what we need to do all sorts of stuff. And you know what? We're trying to boil the ocean and we cannot do that. Small things, small, clear things first. That's what we need to do. I agree completely. And Arthur is so cheerful that it takes a little while to realize just how devastating his analysis is. You said, Rob, that it's weakness from one side.

By the way, we probably ought to distinguish, especially since in a moment we'll be speaking to a Republican governor. We ought to distinguish between Republicans in Washington where there is weakness from wall to wall as you just said and the 30 governors. But in Washington, what Arthur said – this is just sinking into me right now. It's even worse than it looks because what Republicans – the premise of all Republican negotiating is that of course Barack Obama won't want an economic crisis. And Arthur Brooks just said, oh, yes, he does. Bring on the crisis. It will enable him to raise taxes on the middle class that much more quickly. That is to say Republicans have essentially nothing over the administration, nothing. You do this, Mr. President, and you're going to have an economic crisis. And the president says, oh, yeah?

Go ahead. This is – I mean it's just – there's no negotiating position at all. Well, you mentioned Peter. Yes. Say something funny, Rob James. I don't know. I'm slipping into the slough of despond. I think you mentioned something very, very interesting, which is that it seems to be

weakness in Washington, but strength outside of the country. So we are lucky once again to have to be joined by former governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels. Governor, how are you? Well, I'm fine. But listen to the last few seconds. I don't know if I won in this conversation. We were vaping until we were feeling it. I was already feeling grim enough. We just talked to Arthur Brooks, who, as you know, is the superb leader of the American Enterprise Institute. And Arthur couldn't be more cheerful, and yet every word out of his mouth is grim and discouraging, uttered in the happiest possible way. Governor, question from Peter Robinson who's talking to you right now. How is it that the Republicans lost the White House, failed to take the Senate even though far more Democrats

were exposed to re-election than Republicans and lost a little bit of ground in the House, and yet have 30 out of the 50 governors right now. It's interesting, isn't it? Well, I think it speaks at least, Peter, to the continuing vitality of the Republican view of the world, most of the governors that I know and have watched and that succeeded in the last couple elections concentrated on upward mobility for people, on economic growth in the private sector, on expanding opportunity, doing those things that give people tools from their earliest days in school on up through their adult lives, tools for autonomy and taking control of their own lives. And so it seems to me that there is a national application of those sort of principles.

And the other thing to say, I'm hearing all this hand-wringing about the party, and I'm remembering hearing last rights performed over it before, too. One reason of several that I think it's wrong is that there is this huge crop, deep bench of very attractive and interesting people out there, many of them governors. And really, the Democrats don't have anything like it. So I look for a very different political picture before too long. What's Europe? You have to I'm sorry, I cannot you leave office at the end of this month.

Is that correct? Ten days. Ten days from now. So we're talking to a man who gets to be governor for another ten days and has been governor for just ten days short of eight years. I have to ask the New Year's question of the man who's about to leave office. Your proudest achievement and your sorest disappointment as governor of Indiana? Right. Well, I could run down a long list of major changes that happened here, and we're very proud of all of them. But when pressed for one,

what I have said to my fellow citizens is that I hope what has been achieved is that a state never known for leading change, never known for innovation, always very cautious and conservative in that sense, has found out what it's like to be a leader. Indiana is now looked to as one of the few truly fiscally strong states in the country. We have one of the best three or four business climates in the country. We have built infrastructure at record rates when most of America is crumbling. We have led in education reform, property tax reform, and so forth. And that having experienced leadership, that Hoosiers will never settle for mediocrity again.

And how does that, how does the self-reinforced, this to me is a true puzzle. How does the self-reinforcing political culture find traction? I'm struck over and over again that in Texas – of course, Texas, you think of Texas as a conservative place and even in the old days when Texas was run by Democrats, it was run by conservative Democrats and there's truth in that. Remember Senator Ralph Yarborough and Lyndon Johnson enacted the Great Society. There was a strong liberal strain in Texas and that is gone now. Texas has become more conservative and more free market. And now after eight years of you as governor, Indiana has the – I don't have as detailed a feel for the culture in Indiana. But it seems to me that somehow or other, you've got it kicked in now. People want more of this. Indiana's becoming more of a free market state. How do you do it? Just keep at it until people catch on? Well, first of all, we'll see. You know, I'm old enough now to, again, have perspective that a lot of, as I say, a lot of funerals are premature and a lot of celebration is the same. But I would venture to say that results matter a lot.

Americans, you know, the very savvy political analyst Bill Schneider said a long time ago, he said an ideologue is someone who believes that if something is right, it must work, whether it does or doesn't. And a pragmatist is someone who believes that if something works, it must be right, and that most Americans are pragmatists. So we presented here in Indiana, steadily for eight years, policies and reforms and changes, and no one looking at them would define them in any other way than free market and conservative in the modern usage of that word. But, you know, I never talked about them that way, Peter. I talked about their value to people, particularly to low-income people, to young people, to the yet-to-haves in

society. I talked about why they'd be good for everyone, not this group versus that group. And, you know, let the results speak. And so, you know, I just had a lot of go-rounds. The media wanted to do all these so-called legacy stories that I don't even use. And they kept talking about privatization, for example. Well, of course, we did a lot of this. They noticed I never used the word. I said, look, the P word you're looking for is practical. We looked at things in government and asked the same question, whether it was food service in the prisons or who should run a toll road,

a private company or political patronage workers. And the question was, if government should be doing this at all, sometimes the answer was no. But if it should, what's the best way to get it done? And if you present things to people that way and show them results, in this case, that we saved large amounts of money, services got better in the process, people, I think, want to see more of that. And so this is why I think governors maybe have an easier time doing it, because you can actually go effect change, tangible change. And again, people will be fair minded and look at the results and decide, well, maybe more of that's a good idea. One more question about I know you've got to go, but one more question about politics than I'd like to ask about the job you're taking later this year.

Here's the question about politics. You're speaking now as a governor. And as you once put it, governors have doing jobs and legislators have talking jobs. Nevertheless, in Washington, that's all we have right now is the House of Representatives and a few brave souls in the Senate. What would be your advice to Paul Ryan, to Marco Rubio, to Ted Cruz, to people who we know want things to get done but are, at least for the time being, limited to a talking role? Yeah. Well, I'm very, very cautious about advice for those folks.

I wouldn't want their jobs, and they know them better than I possibly could. I'll say a couple things. One is, yes, it's a talking role, so at least get the talk right. Interesting you'd mention Senator Cruz. I don't know him at all, but I happen to see that he wrote a little column in today's Washington Post, and it expresses my viewpoint very closely, which is to say the Republican Party

ought to look at every issue through the lens of those who are yet to rise in society and explain everything we're for, starting from that motive. So I think there's a promising new voice, one of many, who I think has the talk right. In terms of what they do and the immediate tactics, I'm just not that good at this, but I would say, you know, it's a marvel to me is that having lost the election that wasn't that close, having a completely obdurate Senate and a White House

that is gloating and preening and not at all interested in compromise, I can't figure out how this is all John Boehner's fault or the House Republicans. It's kind of an interesting thing. You know, like, I'm just not sophisticated enough to understand these news accounts where somehow it's their problem. But, you know, this may sound odd, but I think in their shoes, I would say, congratulations, Mr. President, you won. You got it.

You got all taxes. There's not a dime of spending reduction. There's not a syllable of entitlement reform. You got what you wanted. Call us if you need anything. Because in two months, there's going to be a huge problem. And when it comes, and there's a bigger economic problem coming behind that, when it comes, the onus needs to be somewhere else than them. Right. Governor, it's Rob Long in New York. I've got just kind of a real – kind of a practical insider question for you. When you're governor of a state as important as Indiana, sort of central as Indiana is to the country, sort of a great big bellwether state, how much – how many conversations do you have with the leaders in Congress or the Senate? Just

at a practical level, was it once a week? Is it once a month? Is it never? I mean, how much cross-chat is there between Republican leaders in the country? Rob, my situation may not be typical, but the answer in my case is almost none.

And, you know, I have been out of partisan politics for six months. Anything I'm saying to you now, I'm just trying to express in a clinical voice. Yeah, you sound pretty happy about that, too, by the way, Governor. Well, you know, that's a dirty little secret. Yeah, I must say it was very, very occasional. Some of that was my fault. I was invited now and then to testify or do things that I chose not to do just because I was head down on the work here, but there probably should be more. Frequently, there's talk about, gosh, we ought to draw on the governors more.

There's some there's talk about, gosh, we ought to draw on the governors more. It's a there's some good talent there. There's a lot of obviously of of a political strength among those 30 people. But it doesn't happen often. Peter here for a final question. I know we've got to let you go. You're about to become the president of one of the great institutions in the country, Purdue University. Now, that's a different environment, obviously. You have to maneuver in different ways to get things done.

But have you developed a public agenda of the top two or three or four items that you'd like to accomplish as president of that university? It's a little soon, Peter, but I think I've spent six months not only studying, but lots of time on the campus. It's been a good opportunity for me. I can arrive maybe in third or fourth grade instead of kindergarten now, but I'm not ready. We'll have to decide these things as a community. I do know what some of the big questions are because they're all over the literature and they're all over the airwaves and they include how does higher education in America validate

its value to those who are purchasing it. And I believe, for instance, Purdue can do this in an exemplary way, but we better get busy. But in other words, to show that the value of the Purdue education and the degree that comes with it is more than worth the cost that's being charged. This is certainly one. The second revolves around the whole mode of higher education. And is it the best way for people to learn? And is it the way people are going to choose to learn in an online world where there are suddenly many, many other ways that knowledge can be transmitted. So we'll be working on those things. And, you know, Purdue is, I think, a fabulous place, but it is not immune to the problems that are being raised and challenged all over the world of higher ed. Governor Willis, when the president of Purdue visits Silicon Valley to look into technology and learning,

get in touch and let me buy you lunch, will you please? Well, I will, and I will because Purdue, you may not know, but Purdue University, in addition to one of the finest engineering schools on the planet, also produces more doctorates in computer science than any school anywhere. And Silicon Valley is full of Purdue grads. So I'm going to have to come out and see them. You will be doing your fundraising out here. All right. Maybe I'll let them buy one of us. Okay. Congratulations on eight magnificent years in public office and good luck on the presidency of Purdue. Mitch Daniels. Thank you.

Thanks for having me on. It's always fun talking to you guys. Take care. Bye-bye. Take care. I was away on a phone call there for my, my job, the one that pays me. I have an office that I have to go to here in mere seconds. So I wasn't able to contribute as much as I could, but I wanted to ask him and maybe we will at a later point about the, you mentioned the toll roads because they put, they privatized the toll roads in Indiana, and I

believe that they're now owned by a joint company that is Spanish or Mexican and Australian, which is, you know, good public-private partnership, except why do they still have toll roads? Perfect metaphor for a government program. You put it in place, you charge the money, you pay off the thing, the roads are paid for, but you still keep collecting the tolls because none of these things once put in can ever be removed, ever. It's got to be maintained and increased in perpetuity. Toll roads are a...

Well, I think the tolls, don't the tolls go... I mean, I think, again, I don't really know, but I thought that the cost of the construction far exceeds 20 years worth or 30 years worth of toll receipts. And so that's – you float the bond based on these 25 or 30 or 40 years of toll receipts, and then at the end you have some money and then use that money just to maintain the road. I thought that's how it worked. Well, they've had 50 years to pay. I think 50 years of tolls is probably sufficient to, to, to pay it off. And what's more here in Minnesota,

we have broad sweeping highways that go all over the place. Not one of them is a toll, not one. So there are other ways. I hope you don't suppose you're not paying for those. Well, we are. We have, we have, we have gas taxes. We have federal money. Of course. I mean, yeah, they didn't, they didn't just spring up out of the earth because we watered some planet-special assholes. There's the toll road down through Orange County, Rob, right? Right. It's fantastic.

It is, isn't it? Always good. And how does the money on that work? I believe it's the same way. They floated a bond. The company floated a bond. The company? But that was a private enterprise that floated the bond. Yeah, I think they pay – they have to pay some kind of fee to the county to use it and then they have to float the bond to pay the construction and then the maintenance of it.

And so it's not cheap but it's – listen, it's always the fastest way to get anywhere in Orange County. Well, the libertarian argument is that all roads should be toll, right? Yeah. I mean if you want to go to the libertarian paradise, every single one of them is a toll road. And you pay for them by having a little RFID thing in your car, which would beep and send the money electronically when you go on the road, which I find interesting. Because if you're going to be in favor of private roads and some sort of electronic monitoring, then you've entered the opposite of the desired libertarian state, don't you? You have a private entity that can track absolutely everywhere you go, which reminds me, isn't there a government proposal being floated to put black boxes in all

cars that will collect all the information that they need in the event of a crash or emergency, of course. Well, I don't – They're interesting, so I don't care. Well, you said you don't drive. Well, I don't go when they're interesting. So I'm happy. Look, they can track you from your cell phone. Well, when you mention –

That horse has left the barn. Right, right. When you mention these things, you start to sound paranoid, and then you realize, for example, that just about every single British crime drama I've seen in the last five years has been solved by somebody looking at a CCTV, which monitor every square inch of London. Andy Kessler, who has been on this podcast in the past, has a brilliant little – excuse me, I say little, but it's not – it seems little because it's so wonderfully readable. He has a column in today's Wall Street Journal on exactly the issues that you're raising. Andy Kessler – in the privacy wars, it's I spy versus G spy. That is I spy us, G spy the government spy.

And he – so thousands of toll booths and bridges and turnpikes across America. There are 4,214 red light cameras, 761 speed trap cameras, half a million cell towers, 400,000 ATMs. New York City alone has 2,400 official surveillance cameras and on and on it goes. And he concludes by saying that information wants to be free and will be free. Plan for it. I'm paying my parking tickets this week. In other words, I'd like to feel there's some way of fighting back against this, but Andy's just saying we long ago gave up on privacy. We have drones, supposedly, that are over the Minnesota Vikings tailgating parties. People look up in the sky and take photographs and videos of these strange spidery craft circling overhead for our security.

Of course, to make sure that they're what, that nobody's cooking a brat. I can see what's happening now. It's tricking noses from James, James. As so often happens, we have to keep an eye on James.

I now understand this, Rob, what happens with James. So, and it's happening now is that the political analyst clicks off and the novelist takes over. James is in the back of his mind. This is now a

premise for a screenplay. That's what's happening. It's impossible. It's impossible in a world that's incredibly connected. All the things we get, all the cool stuff we have now, by definition, is going to restrict and certainly encroach on what, I think privacy may be the grander way to put it, but certainly anonymity.

If you've got a cell phone, the cell phone naturally knows where you are because it has to because it has to bill you. That's just normal. And then if every phone has got a camera in it, that's going to – there's just so much data in the air that it's almost – we'd be fooling ourselves, I think, if we acted like this wasn't the case. Okay. Off the topic of how the world is going to hell, New Year's resolutions. May I? Robert? Oh, wait.

Don't start with me. Well, I got to tell you what my New Year's resolution is. Besides, I have several of them. I really need to implement starting a week ago is just to lay off the bread, Rob. Just lay off the bread. He said after giving us a five-minute disposition on what makes for a good croissant. Oh, God. It's been terrible.

I feel like a gigantic bloated pig. I took the Airbus 380, the new Airbus double-decker 380 back from Paris. Oh, how is it? It's gigantic. But it isn't big. Like, I kept thinking, you know, it actually looks kind of squat next to a jumbo jet, next to a 747.

It's not as long as a 747, but it's just fat and engorged. It looks, I felt like I was getting on a plane that was the sort of physical embodiment of the way I felt, just kind of squat and bloated. So that's my New Year's resolution. You're saying it's an airplane based on a tick that has been feeding off a much larger plane.

Exactly. James? I have no New Year's resolutions. I don't make them. I've never been able to keep one. I want to avoid the sinking but all too familiar sense of self-disappointment that arises about three weeks into January when you realize you haven't kept any of these things. So far, what I've been doing works for me, and I'm going to continue on with that.

All right, all right, one. I've got to finish the revision of this novel, Autumn Solitaire. And it's not that I haven't been working on it. I have. I've just got so many other things to do. And this book has been such a bear such a bitch such a pain it it you have no idea what it's like to write some to write a murder mystery and not be absolutely certain what the plot is and who did it it's just i mean i set myself up with this thing oh well it is and is. So you start with an incident or you start with a character? Obviously, you don't start with a plot.

What do you start with, James? Well, I started with an incident that was based on some photographs that I saw in our newspaper archive at the Casablanca Bar. This union guy was gunned down with a couple other people. Casablanca Bar? We're in Minneapolis? In Minneapolis. In 1944. I've got shots of the dead bodies. I've got

shots of the, the B girls at the bar lounging around afterwards when the press showed up. I've got, I've got the place in my head and I wanted to write about this. And I, so I did. And I, in the process of figuring out what happened in that room and who do it, I went through so many permutations that by the time I finished the book, it was, I was just absolutely in despair. But I solved it. I cleaned it up. I pulled all the loose ends together. And I'm going back and rewriting it.

It's different than anything else I've ever written. It's very slangy. It's very 40s. It's very noir. It moves in present tense all the time. And it goes off on the rails at the end in a way that nobody is going to see coming. And they're going to pat me on the back afterwards for saying, boy, did you drop those clues nicely? Nice work. But Attell, the third one that's coming up behind it, Morocco Alley, I've already written. And that one is just

straightforward. And it's not as much of a pain. And it'll be a joy to revise. But then there's coming up behind that one, the fourth one, which I started on New Year's Eve. On New Year's Eve, right about 12 o'clock, I wrote the first line of the next book, which takes place in 1983 in Minneapolis when I was working as a convenience store clerk at an all-night joint called Ralph and Jerry's, standing there like bullet bait behind the big plate glass window waiting for somebody to come and relieve us of the day's receipts. The customers were all sorority girls, frat guys, and intellectuals who never managed to make it out of college. So when you would drop literary illusions, they'd get them, which was unusual, I think, for a convenience store. It had a quite amazing clientele. So I got around about this place because it had next to it a famous head shop and then a religious cult organization that nobody ever saw anybody go in and nobody ever saw anybody go out. So these are good ingredients for the next book, and I got that in my head.

But I want to get Autumn Solitaire on the Kindle by June. I want to get Morocco Alley finished by the end of the year. And after that, you know, then I've done my dragon girl trilogy. I've, I've written the thing and I can, I can perhaps relax for a little bit. So I have no resolutions, just, just grim determination. Peter? Well, yeah, you're sure Peter. After, after mine is closer to Rob's than to James's. James's'. James' sounds – I mean, yes, Count Tolstoy, what is your resolution? I will finish war and peace. I did something that my boys are already laughing about.

It arrives today. I mean – and I can't believe – I can't believe I'm saying this on the podcast. I can't believe I'm saying this on the podcast. I can't believe I'm being public about this. I broke down on New Year's, that miserable, cold, depressing night when I was all by myself. I went online and to cheer myself up, I bought something. That always works. Until I told my sons what I bought and they started laughing and they're still laughing. I bought P90X. The workout routine.

I was going to say Suzanne Somers- The workout routine that gave Paul Ryan abs. Paul Ryan is 15 years younger than I am. Alright, we'll see how it goes. It's supposed to arrive today. And I also bought, just to show as a sign of my intentness, I didn't just buy the 12-DVD set.

I bought the slightly elaborate – the one step up that comes with the three or four stretchy rubber bands for resistance training. All right. I'm done. I've admitted it. You've still not got to use it. You've got to buy the Peter Jackson version of the 12-DVD sets. It's actually 36 DVDs. It goes into incredible detail about the exercises.

Now, Peter, can I ask you something? Can you just keep us posted on the progress here because I might want to join you. All right. That actually, that would do it. I'm not promising anything. If I had someone to do

it with. But to do this properly is an hour a day, six days a week. We'll see. How does Bill Ryan have an hour a day? He gets up at 5. He's a youngster. He's a child. That's how he does it. All right.

I'll report. Actually, within a week, I'll let you know, Rob. All right. I can tell you right now that I'm going to tell you it's changed my life because whatever is actually the case, I'm going to want you suffering it with me. So I will tell you right now that I'll lie to you.

Peter, go into the bath when we're done here and take the obligatory before picture of yourself, all schlumpy and pale with the gut hanging over the belt so that we can have the buffed-up, six-pack, pexa-shining Peter that is just lurking inside of you desperate to get out.

I may just pay E.J. Hill to work on that after picture. It's always cheaper to Photoshop yourself into a better body. We'll have that for you next year. Well, no, next year. Well, perhaps 2014 will bring great things for Ricochet, but right now we're looking at 2013 where all kinds of wonderful things are going to be happening. New features coming, new design, more meetups, more live shows. It's going to be worth your money.

And we remind you, of course, that money is what we want. So sign up and contribute to Ricochet and keep it healthy and profitable so we don't have another one of those spaz outs with 975 comments at the end of the year when Peter and Rob said, hey, incidentally, guys, we're shutting. Nice work, though. Boy, good God almighty. Well, thanks as ever, Don. You scared poor James.

Indeed you did. Scared me. Thanks to – the one thing that it did do is that with the – it's a wonderful life graphic that you use of George Bailey standing on the bridge. It reminded me that I'd written something years ago that I'd forgotten about and that I keep meaning to drag out at Christmastime as an e-book. And I think next year I'll do it because I found it and I buffed it up. It's a story – it's called It's a Wonderful Christmas Carol and it's a Christmas carol as applied to Mr. Potter who after George Bailey

goes running by and at the end running to his house and Mr. Potter says, enjoy the next year in jail, is that Mr. Potter is visited by three ghosts and we learn all the backstory

of Mr. Potter and Bedford Falls and the rest of it and I wrote it in one big white hot sitting and I just finally went back and looked at it. And I think I'll bring that out next year. So thank you for thank you for reminding me of that. Thank you for having Ricochet and having it into another year as well. Thanks to everybody for listening to audible.com for sponsoring and we will see you in the comments section on ricochet.com and we'll see you all

down the road. week next week fellas the mother i'm a stranger in a strange land i feel like an alien it's like i'm on the outside looking in I don't seem to fit in Maybe I'm alighting with a rusty line A dream that never stood a chance To make all my wishes come true But here's what I wanna do

I'm not a leader, I'm not one to say Thank you. Ricochet. Join the conversation. Thank you. I'm President No more bargains In the basement Well, hell, I'm President Washington Jefferson Watch out, baby Here I come Abraham

Theodore You're gonna see my ugly mother Mount Rushmore Yeah You don't see my every mother, my worst mother.