The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart - Why We Can’t Have Nice Things with Ezra Klein

Episode Date: March 27, 2025

As Democrats struggle to define the future they want to create, we're joined by Ezra Klein, host of The New York Times podcast "The Ezra Klein Show" and co-author of "Abundance," to examine why turning progressive visions into reality has become so difficult. We explore how good intentions have created obstacles, how empowering officials can streamline government, and what could be achieved without bureaucratic constraints. Follow The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart on social media for more:  > YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@weeklyshowpodcast > Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/weeklyshowpodcast > TikTok: https://tiktok.com/@weeklyshowpodcast  > X: https://x.com/weeklyshowpod   > BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/theweeklyshowpodcast.com Host/Executive Producer – Jon Stewart Executive Producer – James Dixon Executive Producer – Chris McShane Executive Producer – Caity Gray Lead Producer – Lauren Walker Producer – Brittany Mehmedovic  Video Editor & Engineer – Rob Vitolo Audio Editor & Engineer – Nicole Boyce Researcher & Associate Producer – Gillian Spear Music by Hansdle Hsu Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This episode is brought to you by Samsung Galaxy. Ever captured a great night video only for it to be ruined by that one noisy talker? With audio erase on the new Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra, you can reduce or remove unwanted noise and relive your favorite moments without the distractions. And that's not all. New Galaxy AI features like NowBrief will give you personalized insights based on your day schedule so that you're prepared no matter what. Buy the Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra now at Samsung.com. McDonald's new cheesy jalapeno and bacon quarter pounder with 100% Canadian beef is here. So

if you crave beefy burgers with a pretty peppery punch and pickled jalapeno peppers pile in a perfect bunch and if you plead please if a cheesy taste came in threes with cheesy jalapeno pepper sauce poured with ease, and if smoky strips of bacon make burgers better, you'll love our cheesy jalapeno and bacon quarter pounder. Get this beefy, bold, bacony, melty mouthful, only at McDonald's for a limited time. ["The Daily Show"]

Hey, everybody, welcome to the Weekly Show Podcast. My name is Jon Stewart. We are taping this on Wednesday, March 26th. You probably get it. Thursday, March 27th. Who knows what will be revealed in the secretive group chats of our nation's most powerful people between now and then. Perhaps lunch orders, an egg salad with onions and celery on a nice pumpernickel. Perhaps that's the order that went around. I've got to stand up on this situation for just one moment.

A, this is why I don't do group chats. They're so fucking annoying, not even when you're obviously planning on bombing another country. But just in the sense, I think their group chat must have had what Pete Hegs had done in the Department of Defense and the National Security Advisor, Waltz and generals and a journalist from the Atlantic. generals and a journalist from the Atlantic. There must have been 16 or 18 people. The notifications alone would make me want to launch missiles. Every fucking thumbs up emoji or bicep arm and fist pump and fire and every little you got that right I agree and your phone ding I would have thrown my phone out the window it's it's maddening

there's got to be a four people on a chat room or whatever they call them text chain all that other shit. And Donald Trump, this is when he is at his best, when he gets that quick onset dementia. Anytime he gets caught in a situation that would require some accountability, he immediately goes into the, I don't even have a text. I've never heard about it. This is the first I've heard about it. You know,

they confronted him on there's classified information going on text change and it's not secure. They're on fucking Snapchat or wherever they're on and they've got a journalist on there and he's like, I don't know what you're talking about. Hey man, that's not me. I do everything Goodfellas style. I go outside, I go to the phone booth, I talk to one person on the phone or we pass notes. I don't do any of that kind of stuff. He did the same with I think the deportation orders. These deportation orders,

the Justice Department says that they're illegal. Oh, well, whoever did them is in a lot of trouble and I'll make sure to talk to them about it if I ever figure it out. I didn't sign it. I don't even know what a pen is. I don't have a pen. I didn't sign it. I don't even know what a pen is. I don't have a pen. I don't use writing.

I don't have hands. How could I have done it? It really is just a remarkable game of, hey man, was it me? And the one thing nobody's actually really talked about is the crazy arrogance in this text chain and confidence. This whole like, fuck Europe Europe fuck these freeloaders like all these countries what did they ever do for us other than sign up to go fight in a war that we started over an event that didn't happen to them. Fuck them.

I mean it's just the most myopic, selfish, arrogant. And then this whole idea, I guess we got to bail these fuckers out again by what? Bombing the Houthis? Like, how many years are we going to be bombing the Houthis? Like, you didn't solve anything. These guys, maybe the new attacks on shipping in 2023 or 2024, maybe they'll chill that out for a little bit. But I mean, the Saudis have bombed the shit out of them. They did a blockade against them. They're acting like, OK, finally, daddy's home and he's going to throw a couple of missiles at them and that'll cure everything. Like that hasn't been the solution to everything we've been doing over these past 30, 40 years.

Ah, we'll just throw a few cruise missiles into Libya. That should fix it. God, it's just, man, arrogance is, is. But here's what I like about the show we're gonna do today. Today we're gonna be talking about Ezra Klein, and I love his podcast and I always learn a ton, but he's written a book that has angered some people on the left because it is self-critical.

It is looking at the things that the left can do to maybe improve their case for people and it couldn't be more timely and people are talking about it. And I'm happy to have him on because I think it is a fascinating and the beauty of it is in the specificity of it. This is not some broad polemic about,

this is a deep and interesting dive into just the mechanics and guts of how a government accomplishes something. And it's really, for me at least, for somebody who loves this kind of stuff, is fascinating. So I'm just gonna, I'm gonna get to them and we'll get this thing damn started. We're so excited to have this gentleman

as a guest on the program. We're gonna get right to him. New York Times podcast host of the Ezra Klein show, co-author of Abundance with Derek Thompson, staff writer at The Atlantic. It's Ezra Klein. Ezra. John.

What is, man, I feel like this book, first of all, congratulations onra Klein. Ezra. John. What is man? I feel like this book, first of all, congratulations on the book. Thank you. A fabulous reception. People are really interested in it. I think there's a real thirst for this kind of blueprint and the type of things. But I have to tell you the first thing that pops to mind is you are like the Timothy Chalamet of the book we're writing. This press tour. it is the complete unknown of

economic blueprints for a path forward. I'm mostly following this analogy. His press tour was ubiquitous. Are you pleased with the way that this has entered the world that has entered the chat? Oh man, I'm like beside myself, thrilled, right? Look, you write a book and you spend years on it. And mostly you spend those years wishing you had not decided to write a book.

That is the story of both of my books, right? I signed the book, at some point I'm like, oh no, I have to write this thing. And I spent a year being like, I had a good life. I didn't need to do this to myself. So just a lot of self-reflection on why did I undertake this? Yeah, it's a lot of rumination. And then what you want is for that thing

you put all this time and energy into to not just slip soundlessly beneath the waves. This is different though. I've never, I mean, I have people write books on my show. I'm like pretty familiar with the book publishing process. I think the way you know your book is doing well is a number of people who haven't read it who have developed a strong opinion on it.

I don't get severance. Have you watched it? I have not watched it. Right, like what you're trying to create with a book is a discourse like generating object, right? Like some set of people are reading the book. More will read the book hopefully over time. But it has become a huge object of argumentation for people who haven't read the book. And in a weird way, I kind of think

that's a big part of what books do. They're artifacts of the ground of conversation people already want to have. They're an excuse for people to begin thinking about something and debating something. The anxious generation by John Hite, I think, was a version of that. It wasn't like nobody had thought of maybe having all these phones in schools are bad before he wrote that, but he created a structured way to have that debate. And I think this has to our delight, along with some other books, Mark Dunkelman's Why Nothing Works, Yoni Applebaum's Stuck. There's a kind of moment here that people are apprehending in different ways. And yeah,

I mean, to write a book that people care about in the year of our Lord 2025, like, what a goddamn gift. A book, book. What is, is that a podcast that you turn manually? What is a book? But it's fascinating to me. When did you start this project? Three years ago, two years ago, four years ago? It's always hard to say when it really starts. The piece I write that I think kicks us off in a way is in 2021, and it's called The Economic Mistake the Left is Finally Confronting. But I can also see a lot of early threads of it in some earlier pieces I write about

California in the couple of years before that. I have a piece, I forget what that piece is called, but where I make this, this can be like when I said orthogonal to you on my podcast. But I make this point that I always really liked, which is that there's an old political science idea that gets talked about all the time, which like the political science version of it is that Americans are symbolically conservative and operationally liberal. And the version of it people know is the Tea Party person with a sign that said, keep the government's hands off my Medicare. And the idea is Americans often like in national politics talking like conservatives. They like the rhetoric of personal responsibility and,

you know, freedom and so on. Bootstraps. Yeah. And then they want Medicare and Medicaid and spending on social insurance. And I had this realization for a bunch of different reasons. I was living in California where I'm also from. So I know that state very well and I love it and I'm talking to you from it. But that in a lot of California, the politics were symbolically liberal and operationally conservative. That you had all these yard signs. Kindness is everything. No human being is illegal. We believe in

science. Hate has no home here. Hate has no home here. And it was all in yards zoned for single family housing, where the working class had been driven out of the city, where at least in San Francisco, the black population for all the BLM stickers had been going down in census after census after census. And at the core of that was an unwillingness

to let things change. The willingness to symbolically state your liberal values was very high. But the willingness to instantiate them in change that might mean something for you personally, not mean you tax some other rich guy, but for you personally was very, very limited. And so, you know, it was something I've been trying to work through around what was going on in California and then over the Biden administration, as I began to think about what was going to

be required to build all this green energy we were funding, you know, I began to see some resonances across these two projects. So yeah, you know, like early 2020s to now. Right. But it's it's this disconnect between we have a value system that we espouse, certainly on Facebook or in our Twitter handles. And yet, operationally, we can never live up to this value system, because you really don't want that value system anywhere near your house. Yes, I have this line at one of the pieces. I did this piece that is actually partially in the book

about what it takes to build affordable housing in Los Angeles, right? The housing that all of us on the left in theory agree on. What do we do when we trigger that public money? And there's a line in there that's like, the politics of this are, when do we want affordable housing? Now.

Where do we want it? Definitely somewhere else. I mean, not right here. That would be a thing. Somewhere down the road. The crazy thing to me is that the moment that it drops, because it's this really interesting theory of there's this absurdity at the heart

of some of the liberal idealism that comes in the difficulty of making it actionable because of liberal resistance to some of it, forgetting about regulation or various things that go into it. But nobody a few years ago is really thinking about that the democratic playbook might be obsolete. It drops in this moment when there is such confusion and chaos as to the direction or the foundation or the blueprint. What you're starting to conjure before any of all this, Project 2025 becomes evident, is maybe a building block for that,

some kind of cornerstone. Do you think that's part of why this has generated such an interest? I do. And I wanna say very clearly, because I do think sometimes people get this piece of it wrong, not the only cornerstone.

Sure. There's a lot in the liberal agenda that we're just not trying to edit here, right? My view is that liberals have a lot of good ideas and I've covered many of them over the years. Are you suggesting you've been criticized for not including everything that could ever possibly be a wish list? There's a funny, reviews have a real quality of we read the book not as a book is, but as we are. And I'm sure I have done this as a reviewer, but there is sometimes I'll read reviews and I know who's writing them.

And it's like this beautiful thing where it's like, this book is great, great, great, great. And then right here, it diverges from my personal politics. And that part isn't great at all. I have some real problems. So there's a lot in the liberal agenda that works and we get right. There's a lot in the liberal agenda that works and we get right. But I think there is a, look, man, it didn't work, right?

There was a theory of the Biden administration and that was a couple of things. But what were the Biden administrations, at least in terms of what it was able to pass, what differentiated it, maybe is the best way to say this, than Obama? Green energy, baby. Green energy and investment. Green energy and infrastructure. Sure. This was a building liberalism.

Yes. Right? The main achievements of Obama, if you like go down and list them, it's like you'll say the Affordable Care Act, you'll say the Dodd-Frank regulations, it'll be a bunch of things like that. And what's interesting about those is that they're all etched into regulation. They didn't require a lot to happen in the physical world, right? Bank capital requirements does not require the laying of a lot of transmission line. But Biden, it wasn't like that. You

know, Lunchpale Joe, Scranton Joe, they had an agenda. I mean, they lost a lot of their care agenda because of Manchin, but they had then an agenda that was very much about building, building world broadband. Maybe even back better. They didn't want to just build it, Ezra. They wanted it back better. Wow, man, that's a, there's something about throwing me back to that moment that hurts at this moment, right?

Like the optimism, the, it was a simpler time. It was a simpler time. But you make the point in the book, which I think is really interesting, that that moment of optimism actually crystallized in some ways the failure. And you make it very stark in terms of, for instance, the chargers, which I think is a great example. Yeah. Liberals pass $7.5 billion for a nationwide network of electric vehicle chargers.

We also get $42 billion. And this is a big thing they tout a lot to do rural broadband. There's a lot of parts of this country that are not hooked up to broadband. And in both cases, and these were passed early in the administration, particularly the rural broadband money, by the end of the administration, by the election, by the time I'm fact checking the book, they just have not happened. And you look into why, and we did look into why,

and what you get are these incredibly baroque internal processes. I'll focus on rural broadband for a minute here, because that one was a good idea. Still a good idea. And they liked it. That was the one they went around when they talked about the infrastructure bill. They were like, roads and rural broadband, right? And if you look

into what happened, they created not in the bill, but this is really important. We have this whole little schoolhouse rock song about like how bill becomes a law and it's like sitting on the steps of the Congress. I'm not going to ask you to sing it, Ezra, if that's what... I'm so... I've been practicing. I have been practicing. We don't have the song about how the law becomes reality, how the law becomes a series of implementation rules, then a notice of funding opportunity, then there's a comment period, then there's a challenge period for the comments, then there's a series of court cases. Right. And so for rural broadband, for instance, what you end up having is a 14-stage process.

There's a period where the Commerce Department needs to draw up a map of which parts of the country don't have the right amount of broadband, and then there's a challenge period on the map and da-da-da-da, da-da-da-da. And 56 states and jurisdictions try to apply for this money. And again, this passes at the end of 2021. They have time. By the end of 2024, three have gotten to the end of the process. They were trying. Three, three of these 56. Out of 56, yes. End of the process, meaning they've actioned it, they've built it, or now they've gotten the-

No, no, no, no, of course not. I didn't mean they had built it, Jon. Sorry, I was so confused you. Oh dear God. They just got to the point where in theory they could get the money to build it. They had been approved for the money. Yes, basically.

How many of these obstacles are? Let's try and tease it out a little, because I think the more specific you get here, Ezra, I think the more helpful it is for everybody to understand. And I will say in the book, we try to get not on this part of the issue, but we get very specific on how these things work, yeah. You're very granular.

And it's fascinating. So I want to tease out how much of this is also local and state issue, How much of this is litigation? How much of this is kind of the liberal instinct of you can't solve anything unless it also solves everything. Meaning it also has to be carbon neutral and hire only disabled contractors and also small businesses. What is the percentage of this that really affects

what you think is a blueprint forward for Democrats and what is other kind of noise? I'm trying to see if I can pull up where I actually have to get granular with you. Somewhere I have from Derek the actual chart. Derek, by the way, the co-author who should, and again, this is not in any way a criticism, grow a beard because it really he does in the interviews appear to be your enthusiastic intern.

He looks 17. I will neither laugh at this nor agree with it. Derek is a beautiful man. It was sometimes distracting for me in the writing of this book. And he is currently perfect in every way. His youthful visage, I find a little bit distracting as a grizzled veteran. All right. We got to take a quick break.

Be right back. Visa and OpenTable are dishing up something new. Get access to primetime dining reservations by adding your Visa Infinite Privilege Card to your OpenTable account. From there, you'll unlock first-come, first-serve spots at select-top restaurants when booking through OpenTable. Learn more at OpenTable.ca forward slash Visa Dining. Okay, flights on Air Canada. How about Prague?

Ooh, Paris. Those gardens. Gardens. Amsterdam, Tulip Festival. I see your festival and raise you a carnival in Venice. Or Bermuda has carnaval. Ooh, colorful. You want colorful.

Thailand, Lantern Festival, colorful. You want colorful. Thailand, lantern festival, boom. Book it. How did we get to Thailand from Prague? Oh right, Prague. Oh boy. Choose from a world of destinations, if you can. Air Canada, nice travels. We are back.

All right, here we go. Ezra's Googling as we speak and he's pulling it up. I'm gonna do this like a golf announcer. Ezra Klein, he is coming up on the 18th green. He is pulling up examples. Okay, okay, the issue, action number one. This is all running through the NTIA, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration,

which I know you're all big fans of. Sure, they've done fabulous work. Yes, so step one is the NTIA must issue NOFO, Notice of Funding Opportunity, within 180 days. I wanna note, by the way, that within 180 days is already kind of something interesting here, because you look at, say, the Works Progress Administration. WPA, what is that, the 30s?

Yeah, the New Deal, right? And Harold Meyerson has a great piece on this back from the 2010s. And that was employing people by then. I mean, 180 days is, I could do some quick math here, it's about half a year. The 180 days is just them notified. They have to notify people that there might be this opportunity. Yes. Medicare, when we passed Medicare in this country,

it gave people Medicare cards one year later. So we're taking half a year here just to tell people that there is going to be an opportunity to apply for grants. And I'd hate to even break this down even further, because this is just step- I'm so glad we're doing this. This is my shit, man. This is like, I didn't expect we'd go here, but-

Ezra, I think it's so important for people though to really get an understanding of just what is the bureaucracy. It's this faceless thing. Right now at Doge, it's demonized as though the people that are running the bureaucracy are the evil ones. They're just executing what they've been told to do by Congress. These are just hardworking, smart people

trying to do the right thing by what's been legislated. And I wanna say, this is a big part of the book. We talk a lot about how hard it is to be a civil servant. We get incredibly talented people to come into the government. Absolutely. That we make it incredibly hard for them to do their job. Absolutely.

I'm a huge fan of this book by Jen Polka called Recoding America, which it absolutely shows how the bodies are buried and how frustrating this is. But okay, so what I'm reading off of here is testimony that was offered by Sarah Morris, who was part of the Commerce Department, to Congress on March 4th, 2025. So everything I am telling you is valid post-Biden administration, right? March 4th, 2025. So, okay, so we have to issue the Notice of Funding Opportunity within 180 days. That's step one. Step two, which all 56 applicants completed, is states who want to participate must submit a letter of intent. After they do that, they can submit a request for up to $5 million in planning grants. Then

the NTIA step four has to review and approve an award. Again, planning grants, not broadband grants, planning grants. And it's still at the NTIA. It's still at the first step. Yes. Just out of curiosity, what is the half a year? What's going on in the 180 days between when this is passed as legislation and when they're going to notify people it's been passed and it's an opportunity? So the NOFO is being, the Notice of Funding Opportunity is being written and in the book, I actually spent a lot of time on the Notice of Funding Opportunity for the Chips and Science Act because that's not a small thing and I don't have the NOFO for this in front of me,

but the Notice of Funding Opportunity for the grants that will go to semiconductor manufacturers to locate semiconductor fabs as they're called in America. That NOFO was long, I read it, and it is just full of stuff. Sure. Look, I call this everything bagel liberalism, the tendency like, and everything bagel, you put a little bit of stuff on the bagel and it's great.

Delicious. And you put too much, and if you saw the movie, Everything Everywhere All At Once, it becomes a black hole from which nothing can escape. So notice that funding opportunities can make a project very complicated. When Chips and Science passed, I, a naive and idealistic policy reporter, thought, oh good, we're going to give a bunch of semiconductor companies money to locate their plants here.

And then I read the no-folk, somebody alerted me to it, and it's like, there's a part that's like in your application, explain how you're going to attract more women into the construction industry, which is like a totally fine goal. But does the Taiwanese semiconductor manufacturing corporation know a lot about that? Or like, how are you going to diversify your subcontractor chains? And there's a seven step process. And like, one idea is maybe you can break deliveries into smaller subcategories. It's all this stuff.

This is for your application. Yeah, this is for your application. There's a thing about showing your plans to put childcare on site in the factories, which again, I have children, childcare is great. But you're trying to do something really hard. We have lost semiconductor manufacturing to Taiwan, to South Korea, to at a lower level China and we are trying to get it back.

One reason we've lost it is we've made it very expensive to do here. Now we're putting more than $30 billion to make it cheaper to do here and in the NOFO to get people to apply for the $30-plus billion, we are putting in a bunch of things that are going to make it more expensive and they're going to make it harder to do the thing. Eventually, that money did go out, I want to say, but we'll see how it works out. And also, by the way, going to make it impossible for anyone other than larger corporations to comply because the expense that it would take for smaller, more agile, more local businesses,

they would not have the manpower, the financial resources. You are excluding an enormous amount of the American economy in terms of building things by laying on compliance costs that would drive most companies into the ground. Yes, that is very true. I will say on the semiconductors, you don't have a lot of small semiconductor manufacturing. Right, in other areas. But in general, what you are saying is completely right. Okay, back to rural broadband. So the NOFO that comes out can have a lot of things in it that you wouldn't expect. It's going to try to achieve a lot of different goals. What are the workforce standards?

What are the equity standards? What are the equity standards? What are the subcontractor approaches? Meaning you can't apply unless you live up to those. Yes. This is what's going to have to be in your application. They are setting out a series. You might think that basically what they're setting out is here's how to persuade us you are going to be the best at building whatever we're trying to get you to build.

Again, I don't have this NOFO in front of me, so I don't want to say things that may not be true about it. But having read other reporting on this, my sense't have this nofo in front of me, so I don't want to say things that may not be true about it. But having read other reporting on this, my sense is all this stuff was in the nofo. And I have a bunch of examples in the book. It's all in every liberal bill now, right? They pass bills. And then in the process where the different interest groups

and players can come in and shape how the bills are turned into regulations and grants and so on, that's where it's much easier to say yes to all these other members of your coalition. And by the way, it's not like Republicans are great here. It's just they're like circling interest groups or like the oil companies and so on. There is a lot of bad stuff that happens

after a bill passes in part because most of the system stops paying attention. When we're fighting about it in Congress, there are reporters, there are members of Congress, there's a lot going on. The regulatory process, which is very, very powerful and important, does not have that level of attention on it. It's more complicated, it's slower, it's annoying, there's less conflict. I'll give you something else, Ezra. This, I think, is also an important part of the process. Congress people are very busy. And so the space between what they have the capacity to do to delineate these things versus what lobbyists in these industries have to do.

In other words, a lot of what's in these wish lists are industry wish lists. The lobbyists who have the time, industry is writing a lot of what's in these bills. Yes. Yeah. And this goes to something that we talk about throughout the book, because it affects housing and everything else. It happens at the local level. We have created, with all good intention, a lot of processes meant to expand the role of citizen voice. You know, regulatory notice and comment periods are in theory something that anybody can show up to. But like, how many

regulatory notice and comment periods have you shown up to? Possibly actually you specifically because of some of the work you've done. I actually have shown up to a few. You've shown up to a couple. But you're a special flower, right? Yes. So, you know, these things get captured. Who knows when the planning meeting is happening? It's the people who have houses down the block from the potential affordable housing complex. It's not the people who might benefit

from living in that complex in the future. All right, so the NTIA must issue a NOFO within 180 days. States who want to participate must submit their letter of intent. Step three, they can request up to five million dollars in planning grants. Just planning. Just planning. Step four, the requests are reviewed, approved and awarded by the NTIA. How long is step four by just out of curiosity? I actually don't know. It's a great question.

OK, that's good. So that's step four. But this process we are talking about, which currently, all 56, three years later, all 56 applicants had passed through at least step five. It took more than three years. So it's a long time. Oh my god. States must submit a five-year action plan.

So the states kind of go back, and they kind of think about how they're going to do this. And they don't just say, OK, thank you for the money. We're going to spend it. And you can see how it worked out later. We're like, here's our five-year action plan. Then the FCC must publish the broadband data maps before NTIA allocates funds.

So this one is, I think, a little funny at least. So these maps, right? This is supposed to show you where you don't have enough broadband, but it then says in parentheses, and states needed opportunities to challenge a map for accuracy. So having done the NOFO, the letters of intent,

the request for planning grants, then the review, approval, and awarding of the planning grants, then the five, approval, and awarding of the planning grants, then the five-year action plans. In between that, the federal government has to put forward a map saying where it thinks we need rural broadband subsidies. And then, of course, the states need an opportunity

to challenge the map for accuracy. And you can imagine this doesn't all happen in a day. OK, so then the NTIA, step seven has to use the FCC maps to make allocation decisions. Then having already done their letter of intent, the request for planning grants, it's hard even to talk about this, man. Ezra, I just want to say, like, if you were going to design a machine that would keep people from getting broadband. If you were to design a machine that would, it's almost as though they have designed this

to make sure that people in rural areas never, by the time this is around, Musk will already have the chips in our brains. We won't even need it. Well, that literally is happening, by the way. By the time this could have gotten off the ground, Musk is taking it over for Starlink. Right. OK, step seven is NTIA must use the FCC maps

that were already challenged for allocation decisions. Then having submitted all this, I think this one is actually quite amazing. Having submitted their five-year plans or letters of intent, step eight is states must submit an initial proposal, an initial proposal to the NTIA. Is that the result of their five million dollar planning fund? This initial proposal?

I assume. But then what was the five-year plan? And what the fuck did they apply for? What was their NOFO? God. Like if the five-year action plan isn't the initial proposal, then what's the five-year action plan? Forget NOFO. MOFO. These are motherfuckers. These regu- this is crazy. Step nine. NTIA must review and approve each state's, again, initial proposal. By my read, we have had at least two initial proposals here, but that's a different issue. Oh my gosh.

Step 10, states must publish their own map and allow internal challenges to their own map. So the government has published a map, they have invited the states to challenge the map. Then states have submitted initial proposals and they then have to publish their own map and allow challenges. Wait, who's challenging it within the state? Well, organized interest groups, environmental groups, I don't know who specifically, but any, literally anybody.

Oh my God. This is, I want to say something because it's very important I say this. This is the Biden administration's process for its own bill. They wanted this to happen. This is how liberal government works now. This is something they instituted. For their bill. For this bill. They wanted this.

So I just, it's so important to say this. This is not how Republicans handicapped a liberal bill. Oh wow. This is a bill passed by Democrats with a regulatory structure written by Democratic administration. Okay. This, by the way, so the thing I'm looking at, it tells me as of March of 2025, how many of the players had gone through everything. So until what I just said, states must publish their own map and allow challenges. Three years plus into this, all 56 had done that,

but now you begin to see players falling out. Step 11, the NTIA must review and improve the challenge results in the final map. So the NTIA has put forward a map, the states have challenged that map, then the states have put forward their maps, had other challenges, and now the NTIA must review and approve the challenges to the state maps. Okay. At this point, it's 47 of the 56. So we've just lost nine of the applicants. My hair was dark when we started this process. I was a young, healthy man.

I had the bone density of a- Your VO2 max was amazing. Of a stainless steel. I didn't need any supplements. And by the way, I want to make sure that everybody understands each one of these steps, I'm sure, and pardon me if I'm being presumptuous, each one of these steps has an amount of time

that they write into. So in other words, it's a 90 day waiting period for these challenges. It's a 120 day review process. There's already, without anybody even submitting anything, that they could have seen on a macro level, two and a half years of nothingness built into the plan. Yes. I mean, I can't say because I haven't looked at every regulation here,

but yes, yes, yes, yes, you are confident. I feel confident. I feel confident knowing what the public comment times are. Like you always have 90 days, 120 days. They have a 30 day review process. They have an 800 day. You know, it's all of this. Yes.

Okay, got to take a quick break. We'll be right back. With the Fizz loyalty program, you get rewarded just for having a mobile plan. You know, for texting and stuff. And if you're not getting rewards like extra data and dollars off with your mobile plan, you're not with Fizz. Switch today. Conditions apply. Details at fizz.ca. Hit pause on whatever you're listening to and hit play on your next adventure. Stay two nights and get a $50 Best Western gift card. Life's the trip. Make the most of it at Best Western.

Visit bestwestern.com for complete terms and conditions. Visit bestwestern.com for complete terms and conditions. We are back. Ezra. By the way, this whole thing I'm looking at, this testimony, this is a member of the Commerce Department who is part of this coming to testify in March 4th, 2025 before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, their subcommittee on communications and technology, in a hearing called Fixing Biden's Broadband Blunder. Oh my God. So this is somebody trying to defend what they're doing to a Republican Congress.

It's trying to take their money away. So I just want to note that because it gets interesting for them what gets said ultimately. Okay. So we've done step 11, NTTIA must review and approve challenge results and final map, we've lost nine of the applicants at that point. Step 12, states must run a competitive sub-granting process. Oh my fucking God.

At step 12, after all this has been done. Yeah, none of that could have happened along the way here. We have now lost 17 more applicants. So now 30 of 56 have completed step 12. Step 13, states must submit a final proposal. This all, all the proposals weren't enough to NTIA. Now that goes to three of 56. So we've gone in the last couple of steps

from 56 had gone to this point to three of 56. So we've gone in the last couple of steps from 56 had gone to this point to three of 56. Step 14, the NTIA must review and approve the state's final proposal. And that is three of the 56 jurisdictions and states are there. And then I will just tell you John, cause it will break your heart as it breaks mine.

As this very, I am certain, hardworking and well-meaning public servant stares down a hostile Republican Congress that is like peppering them with questions. The next line, which is in bold, says, in summary, colon, states are nearly at the finish line. And it says to stop their progress now, or worse, to make them go backwards would be a stick in the spokes of the most promising broadband deployment plans we have ever seen. End scene. I'm speechless, Ezra. honestly, like it's a far worse than I could have imagined. But the fact that they amputated their own legs on this

is what's so stunning. And I'll just for fairness sake, I'll give you the flip side of that, which is the pact act, right? I'm gonna say to you, as you said to me about orthogonal, what's the pact act John? Oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. You Washington times.

It's the burn pit bill where soldiers who had been exposed to toxins who had slept near there were getting all these illnesses for the VA to cover them presumptively for these other illnesses. It took a few years. They let us write it. They literally, the committee in Congress was like, could you guys write that? So with the help of some people and all the VSOs, they wrote this bill that would cover all these veterans. Then it went through, you know, House Veterans Affairs, Senate Veterans Affairs,

put together, they come up with this bill. The big Republican complaint was, once they realized they were going to get strong-armed on having to help veterans who were sick. Oh, really? Was well, geez, all these new people that are dying, isn't that going to flood our hospitals at the VA and create a lot of lag times for people getting in there? So the VA, to their credit, in a very short amount of time,

came up with an action plan about what they would need to do to hire people to create the capacity so it wouldn't have that. They implemented it. They did it within six months. They put it all together. Hundreds of thousands of veterans were helped because of that.

The lag times didn't happen. And it worked. It's working. And what did the Republicans do? The first thing they did when they came in is they fired all those people. So understand, there are two sides to this coin. There is this incredibly frustrating,

overcomplicated Rube Goldberg machine that keeps people from getting broadband. And then on the flip side is a group of legislators who don't want to give you anything. We are caught between a party that wants to make government fail and a party that does not make government work. Yeah. That is my very simple version of politics. Look, I wanna give a different, not a different,

but take on why this is such a problem for a minute. Okay. There's a line from Jake Sullivan, I think it was, but fact check me, but I'm pretty sure it was him. And it was one of the sort of Biden retrospective pieces, believe, in the Washington Post. And he said, look, the problem here is elections happen in four years, and Joe Biden's policy agenda is measured in decades. It's epochal. You can't expect Methuselah to get in there. But I've heard this in different ways from a bunch of people.

Gavin Newsom said a version of it to me when I was on his show that I just taped the other day. And I wanna say two things about this. What actually upsets me the most about the way liberals govern is that they excuse it all away like this. Like this is, I mean, it's such a shame. Election cycles are short.

We can't do anything about that. We only had four years. We are choosing this. All those things I just read to you are chosen. There is nothing in the history of this country that would say that we can't figure out how to put, like you probably got broadband set up in your house. Did it take you four years?

Well, we did have, they did give us some times that they said they would be over, and it did take a while. The problem with getting into this mode, where you've persuaded yourself that for the government to do anything, it's going to be a six to 10 year timeline. Like the infrastructure bill, most of the road projects that have a completion date have a completion date in mid-2027 for a bill passed in 2021.

So except for being annoyed that there's construction, nobody's going to feel that anything good was done for them. And the reason this really matters is that if you stretch the timeline of liberal democracy like taffy, so it gets longer and longer and longer. What you have broken is the fundamental way people can feel that they benefit from liberal democracy. And it would be one thing if there was just no other way to do it, right? But you look at the history of this country. I mentioned earlier, when Lyndon Johnson passed Medicare, it gave people a Medicare card in

a year. The Affordable Care Act took four years. Negotiating down the prices of a limited number of drugs under Medicare, which is arguably the most popular policy the Biden administration passed, more than three years. Just didn't agree on the prices of that concern. So they couldn't run on anything. And by the way, just the idea that the government,

the largest customer to drug companies, the same people that give those drug companies subsidies and billions of dollars, can't just go in there and go, and by the way, give us 20% off this shit, because it's so much cheaper in every other country. It's not even just a question of liberal democracy writ large. It's you can look at democracies around the world, Western democracies that build shit faster, cheaper and better. It's it's unconscionable. Like I always say, like in the time it took California to not build

500 miles of high-speed rail, China built 23,000 miles of high-speed. That's state-run capitalism is hard to match it to. But Europe does it too. Yes, that would be my point. You know, like Spain builds it, and we have this joke in the book. It's like, they have a government, we checked. They have higher union density than we do.

They nap. Ezra, they nap. Spain is building it. But yet, between 3 o'clock and 5 o'clock, they're all asleep. How is that possible? One of the things I'm trying to shape people on with this book is that Democrats, liberals, people who believe in government have entered into a kind of learned helplessness about how government works. As if like the way they have ended up doing it, I call this a culture.

It's not an ideology. The culture of how Democrats govern has become like this. I was talking to Jon Favreau the other day of Pod Save America, we were doing an event. I will yell about high-speed rail forever in California. High-speed rail was one of three headline projects out of the stimulus in 2009 because they had the whole part where they're just trying to pump money into the economy, but then they had this idea of the infrastructure of the future. And the three they always talked about were high-speed rail, that Obama talked about, smart grid, and national network of interoperable electronic healthcare records. I said this and like, John's like, well, oh, for three.

They couldn't get the computers at the Department of Defense to talk to the computers at the Department of Veterans Affairs for 10 years. Yes. Well, yeah. So the idea that they get all the private computers to talk, but we keep failing. We're good at moving money around, right. If we tell you we're going to do social insurance, we're going to expand the unemployment tax credit, you're going to get a bigger child tax credit, the IRS, which Musk and Trump are gutting, was actually in a million different ways

a model of efficiency. What it has been able to do in terms of building out a tax and transfer state that was never actually designed to run, and particularly what it did during COVID, is for whatever failures are there, actually quite remarkable. The fact that they never actually designed to run, and particularly what it did during COVID, is for whatever failures are there, actually quite remarkable. The fact that they got checks out to people in the amount of time that they got them out there,

and they distributed those funds efficiently, it can work, but it doesn't. And I have to tell you, so some people may listen to this conversation, right? And they may go, well, how the fuck are you two still believers in a government that accomplish things? And I think for me, it's a question of, because we're doing it wrong. This is not the method by which to accomplish things. And I have examples of doing it right. Yes. And if you have analogs that can show you that that can be done,

then it still fills you with perhaps misguided idealism or a misguided optimism. But I know it can be done because it's been done. Well, I'll say a couple things here because it is easy to get so focused on failures. You don't see successes as you said. So one is I do get this, well, if you hate government regulation so much

and you think Texas is building housing, so well, why aren't you just a Republican? It's like, are you asking me why in my fury that we are not building the liberal future I think we deserve, like the just, humane, green future? Why don't instead embrace a vision of a future that I think sucks? A future where I'm choking on dirty air and the world is in a heat trap and nobody's even

trying to build high-speed rail. That's your big question for me. That's your gotcha. Yeah, I'm allied with the people trying to create a vision of the future that I think is a good one. And two, look, it's not that nothing ever happens. It happens too slowly. But in fact, the Inflation Reduction Act has set off a huge boom in building solar and battery manufacturing. It could be happening faster if we have better laws for building things. But it is happening.

The Affordable Care Act took four years to deliver health insurance to people. But people have the health insurance now. And if we had never passed that bill, they wouldn't have the health insurance. And like, what's fucking Donald Trump trying to do is trying to gut Medicaid. So yeah, I government does do something just fine. There are differences.

But I think that's where where do people on the left get angry at you? Because what I find is, I can tend to be critical about those delays because of my fear that it puts the entire idea that government can be a force to ease some of the struggles. Look, the operating system that we've chosen to use is capitalism, and it generates wealth better than any of these other systems that has been operated. But there's no question there's collateral damage, sometimes by design, sometimes by externalities, sometimes by the idea that as money begins to accumulate, well then people can rig the system more easily. Government is the only influence that is large enough to provide a check or a balance to that kind of rapacious

or destructive wealth building, right? If that isn't functioning appropriately, that is my anger. How do they criticize you for criticizing that if that is not too convoluted? I want to be kind to criticisms here, some of which I think are well-founded and some which are not. Yes, yes, yes. I guess here's what I would say. One, I just really want to co-sign what you just said and add one thing to it, which is

that part of the problems of capitalism are that it is rapacious, that it will ship its own mother off onto an ice floe to make a buck. It just doesn't know. It's impersonal. Capitalism is an impersonal force. It is not immoral. It is not moral. It is amoral. Right. It's like being mad at a great white shark. It's something, yeah. Yeah. And so there are things it does that create collateral damage, and then there are things it just doesn't do because those things are not connected to a profit motive at all.

There is a huge amount of public good provision. Capitalism, I mean, can you imagine creating the libraries today, the public libraries? Of course not, like capitalism creates bookstores. It's never gonna create a library. Public utility. Not because it's rapacious and terrible, just because it's not what it does.

It's like asking a great white shark to scramble you some eggs. You know? It's not what a great white shark does. Oh, boy. Would that? That would be a show I would watch, though, if that was on YouTube. I think Mr. Beast could probably make that happen for us.

So that's one thing about capitalism. But then the other thing about the critique on the left is that I genuinely believe that nobody should be angrier. Concerns are delighted by government failure. If you are a liberal or you're on the left, you should be rip shit about government failure because it is striking at your project. You should be rip shit about high-speed rail, rip shit about the rural broadband initiative, rip shit about how long everything is taken

compared to what it took in the past. If you look at like, AOC came out with a really big, ambitious public housing bill a couple of years ago, right? She's saying, look, the people who are all out there saying, the EMBs, et cetera, saying, we don't have enough housing, they're right. But let's do a lot of it through public housing. And people don't know this, but one of the things we've regulated very heavily, and that's partially why some of these projects are so broke,

is we've regulated the government very heavily. When people talk about deregulation, they think of the market. For me, I have to think of the need to deregulate the government itself. But it was made functionally legal for the federal government to build public housing. It really can't do it. But in order for it to build public housing well, you would have to make a lot of changes to how it builds like all across the board because it layers so many standards. I mean, look at that rural broadband

process. You're not going to fix the housing problem. If that's what they came up with for rural broadband, just fucking imagine what a nationwide public housing project would look like. No, yeah. But other countries do it. Singapore, I think, what is it? 80% of people live in some kind of social housing there. There are countries that do a lot of this well.

And one thing I think that the left, and for that matter, liberals, often just don't pay enough attention to is what stands in between them and their agenda that is not Republicans. Because they can really see when Republicans stand between them and their agenda, and Republicans often do. But one reason a bunch of this book is focused on governance failures in California, in New York, and places like that, is because these are places Republicans hold no power. So you can't say, oh, if only the mean Republicans will let us do it. We get it done boy. That's a good point You're actually left looking in the mirror thinking, you know

Why haven't I made my own bed here? And if you want to do what AOC and Bernie Sanders want to do Right if you want to do a Green New Deal of the size of their Green New Deals If you want to do a Green New Deal of the size of their Green New Deals, we just flatly do not have the laws that will allow you to build that much green infrastructure. And we definitely, like nobody disagrees. We definitely don't have the fucking laws that will let you lay down transmission lines across the country to get all that new clean energy you're generating to the places it needs to go. And if we don't have those laws, then your bill will fail. Right.

One thing that liberals get very, and leftists get very stuck on is the price tag. The economist Noah Smith calls this checkism, where it's like we sort of judge how good or ambitious legislation is on how big the estimated price tag on it is. It's like we got $300 billion for green energy. I mean, good, but that was bullshit compared to my $900 billion plan.

Right, right. Money, like, look, we've, like, you could spend a lot of money in California, I speed rail and build nothing, right? Like money isn't the end goal here. It's particularly when you're building things, built infrastructure, right? It's the number of people hooked up

to roll broadband, et cetera. Our sort of provocation in the book, what we're telling all these stories for, is not to come down on like one set of policy solutions because honestly, the problem in transmission lines is different than the one in housing. The problem in housing is different than the one in kind of supply of healthcare, right?

There's all these things here, but is to try to get people to ask a question much more regular than we do, which is simply this. Like this is the whole book boiled down to one question. What do we need more of? And why is it so hard to get it? That's like the whole thing that we just don't ask well. I think some of the criticism that isn't as strong

comes from a tendency that we all have to just group certain means into ideological buckets. Deregulation, that's a thing, Republicans. Spending money, that's a thing. We did that in finance and look what it did to the world economy. That's a thing Democrats do, right? Critiquing government,

Republicans do critiquing government, right? Like thinking the private sector can solve some things, like that's a thing Democrats do. But sometimes you need to flip it, right? A bunch the private sector can solve some things, like that's the thing Democrats do. But sometimes you need to flip it, right? A bunch of the things we're talking about here. Like I want to deregulate the government enough that it can build high-speed rail itself. So I am trying to make a much stronger government.

And it just kind of scrambles people's ideological categories a bit. So I just did this podcast with Governor Newsom and we were talking about high-speed rail, which like he walked into office and it was already fucked. And he's the one who came in and said, we are gonna shrink this from LASF, which we have no money and no capability to do,

to Merced de Bakersfield. And you can critique him for not scrapping it, because I'm not sure Merced de Bakersfield is worth doing. But I was talking with him, because the book is very critical of California governance. And he was very interestingly to me positive on the critique. He's like, this is right. This is what's going wrong.

But what he said is like, look, we cannot build under this level of lawsuit. He's like, high-speed rail is built. He put it in the litigation. Well, that's a big part of it. One difference between the way we do government in America and the way they do it in Europe is we restrain government the litigation term. That was- Well, that's a big part of it. One difference between the way we do government in America and the way they do it in Europe is we restrain government through litigation here. A huge amount of the bills passed by both liberals

and I mean, they're sort of liberal as Republicans then, too, but a lot of the bills, the big environmental bills, are passed by Nixon. The EPA is created by Nixon. The National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, that's all Nixon stuff, but it's done with Democrats. And a lot of it is also to be fair state and local.

Like if you even without the federal government intervention, state and local zoning restrictions, environmental law, all these different things are also there. Ezra, I wanna ask you, what do you think about even stepping back a bit further than that? Which is, like, what do you think about even stepping back a bit further than that, which is, you know, we're talking a little bit about the priorities of a more

progressive agenda, the things that they want to build. Is there even a more basic step that needs to be addressed first? Because one of the issues that I think afflicts maybe more progressive policies, which is we need 500 billion to build this. We need to tax billionaires to get the money to do this. But the public does not trust that that money will be attached to a value that directly impacts their lives because they haven't seen it for a couple of decades or so. And on the flip side, the Republicans come in with a Sith and they're chopping it in the name of efficiency, but again, with no eye to value.

Do Democrats have to almost take even a step further back and simplify the case for value and making that case to people and competence. Let me say this one as clearly as I possibly can. Democrats have to be the party that owns government reform. One thing is if they don't, then what you're going to get is something like Doge, which is the destruction of the government under the guise of reform. But two, the politics of reform, it is one of the most powerful streams of politics that exists in American life. I think you can just go back over recent elections.

You can basically predict the winner just on who owns the politics of reform. So Obama runs as a good government reformer. I mean, people forget this now about him, but like his big pitch was not post-racialism. It was- Yes, we can. The special interests and the lobbyists, they're dicing us up into red and blue

and they're fooling us and they're, you know, they're fucking up our politics, you know, and we're gonna get them out of here and we're gonna have a government for you. Obama was very much a reformer. Trump, in his own way in 2016, he runs as a reformer. Drain the Swamp is a reform line. And Hillary Clinton is very much like she's been in Washington forever.

She took all this money from Goldman Sachs, right? She embodies the opposite of reform. Status quo establishment. Status quo. People always say status quo and change. And I think this is a place where Democrats often don't want to see part of what that implies, because we're not the status quo.

We have all these big projects, just as you're saying, John, to give people money. But status quo is also about this question of will you change the way the thing works? So Trump runs as a reformer. In 2020, in a way, during the pandemic, when the Trump administration is fucking up government left and right, I wouldn't really say Biden

runs on an agenda of reform, but he does run on agenda of trying to make government work and believe science and things like that. And we were in a very unusual moment in 2020. And then in 2024, Harris has this very unusual problem of running as sort of the incumbent, but not the incumbent. She runs as the defender of the institutions, not the reformer of them. That's right. And the politics of government reform, like Bill Clinton ran on government reform, reinventing

government, Al Gore on with David Letterman talking about how expensive the ashtray at the Pentagon. Cass Sunstein in the back room writing all the things. Yeah, right. So the politics of reform are very, are very important, but also it also reminds me of something else. Like, look, you live in a relatively high tax, uh, liberal state. I lived in California and then I now live in New York.

I hear a lot of people complain about taxes, but what I don't primarily hear them say is just that my taxes are too high. It's at my taxes are too high and I get nothing. That's, that's everything. That's everything. That, that is the exact crux of what we're talking about. And even, you know, when we talk about the great examples of democratic revolutionary legislation over the past 20 years, even when you talk about the ACA, I pay a lot of taxes.

Oh, so you get healthcare. Well, no, I get maybe a stipend that'll buy me insurance. Oh, so the insurance is healthcare. Well, no, it's actually like a ticket and you have to go up to the counter and they'll say, well, yes, you can have a little bit of healthcare, but you can't have this health. There is a disconnect. It reminds me of the education conversation.

There was once, sort of, it went viral. It was a list of the 10 ways that people learn best. And then they put the 10 ways that things are taught, and they were exactly contradictory of how things. We have designed a system that is, of how things, we have designed a system that is, in many ways, government has just become the trough for big business to come in, give nothing away, only extract,

and I think nobody has demonstrated to people in recent times that it doesn't have to be that way. Okay, but I want to I want to do the the one uncomfortable thing here, please because I want to say Yes, and are we are we improv? We're improv in this bad boy. All right, we're improving bring it liberals are really comfortable When the government when the enemy is big business and it often is But in a lot of what we are talking about that that 14 stage rural broadband thing I just went through, that wasn't business. That's a good point. Well, I bring this up because we're actually

pretty comfortable saying no in some cases, not as many as it would be ideal to business. We have a politics of that. Well, we have a lot more trouble saying no to is ourselves, our allies. Or if you're in a local government, right? Right. You know, a bunch of homeowners who never want the affordable housing. Our idealism. Yeah, and sometimes our idealism, right? You can sort of imagine if I like unwound those nofos and everything, how all the things that get in there, like the subcontractor diversity requirements and everything,

for the people in the room, it's like, I mean, I don't want to say no to that. The people asking for that are good people. They're our friends. They're trying to do something good in the world. And all the things that are making all the building more expensive, look, there's a big, I report on this affordable housing project in San Francisco.

And it has an interesting fight tucked inside of it. It has a lot of interesting fights in it. You should read the book. Was that the one where they bought every unit, cost like $400,000 to build? Yeah, instead of the double that it usually costs, which it still sounds like a lot, but it was finished for half the cost and half the time.

And one of the big reasons is that they use modular housing construction, offsite factory built housing. First affordable housing to do that, either in San Francisco or, to my knowledge, California, though I'd want to fact check that, but I think that's right. Anyway, there's a big fight with the unions on that, but it's interesting because it's a fight in two directions. You have the construction trades who try like hell to kill that project. And the only reason they can't kill it is it uses private sector money. But the factory that was doing the modular housing construction was unionized. Right. So there was a union benefiting on the other side of this too. But you get into these sort of local political power fights, which are, you know, I know California politics really well, and it's really significant there.

which are, you know, I know California politics really well, and it's really significant there. And it's not that you can't work with some of your allies. I tell it some length, the story of Josh Shapiro rebuilding the I-95 bridge in 12 days as opposed to 12 to 24 months. 10 years, yeah. He does that with union labor, but those unions are working 24-7. And what he also does is put down an emergency declaration that wipes out all these other procurement and environmental review and contracting. The 14 steps. It takes away the, the Al-Anon 14 steps. It's actually a great counter example because here's something. So this tanker rolls over, catches on fire, and the bridge falls down. And this is like one of the major arteries

of the Northeast Corridor. So it's a huge problem. And the first day Shapiro comes out, Governor Shapiro, and says, look, this is a huge disaster, and people are going to need to be patient. This is very likely to take 12 or more months to reconstruct. But they wipe out all the rules. And what the Department of Transportation head does

is he goes and remember what all that stuff we just did with World Broadband, he goes that day and on the bridge nearby working on just normal maintenance projects that had already been in play are two different contractors. And he basically grabs one and says, you're the demolition guys now. And he grabs another and says, you're the demolition guys now. And he grabs another and says, you're the rebuild guys.

Oh, leadership. And the contractors are on the job at the end of the first day. And I talked to him, it's in the book, and I say, how long would that normally have taken? He said, under our normal process with the bids and the challenges to the bids and et cetera, it takes 12 to 24 months to do the build and contracting. Just to get ready to start. I think ultimately the point is this. I look at government as we need to use it to harness the power of business, not let citizens be exploited by the rapaciousness of business. And they are two very different things. That is not to say you're anti-business, but it's to suggest that you have to be

some kind of a bulwark against those kinds of instincts that they have there. And that is the way, do you remember, there was a book called, ah, shit, The Death of Common Sense, is that ring a bell to you, Howard? That sounds like a book. Who wrote about it's not that we don't necessarily have, you know,

regulations thing is that we don't interpret them with any common sense. We don't allow leadership, whether it's within the judiciary or whether it's in the regulatory, that we allow the bureaucracy of it to become almost sentient and forget that it's a tool. And I almost wonder, you know, you talked earlier about what man is capable of. We put somebody on the moon. Maybe we need a kind of bureaucratic moonshot, a Manhattan project.

We have begun is such a absolute fucking shame. What we've done. We have made, it is such a absolute fucking shame what we've done. We have made bureaucrat into this dirty word. But we've done it by making the job miserable. Because it's adversarial in many respects. It's not just adversarial. We don't give them any latitude.

So Elon Musk wants to fire all the bureaucrats. Things are all lazy and unproductive. I wanted before this and and I want now, to have genuine civil service reform. I want it to be easier to hire, easier to fire, easier to manage. I want them less bound by rules. I want to trust their discretion.

No system of government works at some basic level. No system of anything. If you have so little trust in it that you won't allow people to make decisions. It just doesn't. This is a big part of Jen Palka's book. I have, again, a really pretty interesting interview that's in the book about this part's about LA public housing. It's why, so in LA, they passed this bond measure, more than a billion dollars to build public housing. Whatever it was, six years later when I'm writing, they built like, I don't know,

a couple thousand units and many of them were like $700,000 per unit. And it was like, why? I ended up talking to a woman named Heidi Marston, who'd been running the homelessness services in LA. And she had quit and like written this letter about why she was quitting. And she said something I think about a lot. She was like, I had a billion dollars. And if you had just allowed me to spend it, I could have really done something with it. Oh, it's fucking heartbreaking. And I'll just give an example from this project. So we pass this bond measure. And what we do in the bond measure is, we put in rule regulation, whatever. But you're basically supposed to use the public taxpayer money to seed the project, not to build it, to seed it.

And then you're supposed to cobble together like five more sources of funding to build it. And the idea was that this is gonna save taxpayer money. We're gonna leverage taxpayer money, right? A great word from finance. What it ends up doing is making it really, really, really difficult to finance a project. And you're getting, I mean, it's affordable housing, right? So it's not like Blackstone is giving you the money. So you're like, here's a tax credit program to house homeless veterans,

but then I need to like put in these particular things for homeless veterans and I need to find them. And here's another thing for survivors of domestic abuse. And I get some money from that. And I was talking to people who work on affordable housing, and they all said the same thing. And I talked to the LA Comptroller guy at that time named Ron Galperin. And what he said to me is like, look, you would think I'd be all in favor of this. Like, I'm the person watching LA's money. And I'm telling you, this was absolutely insane. Because how much we slowed everything down, as we were trying to show we were saving taxpayer money,

like we added that much cost just in what we were adding to the project. And we made it not happen and we slowed it down or whatever. And what I wanna say the core of this we were never doing was trusting the civil servants. Right. Like giving them the room to run, giving them money and saying, you spend it and we're not going

to audit you 27 times and run you in front of a hearing and yell at you. We're going to treat you like you're good at what you fucking do and we're going to let you do it. And if the public doesn't like how this is all being managed, they can vote the mayor out in the next election. Here's the final pitch, Ezra, because I think that is dead on and it reminds me of something that what happens is they're so afraid of waste, fraud and abuse, which are very legitimate things to be concerned about, that they build into the system waste, fraud and abuse. Yes.

That the waste, fraud and abuse of the system that is there to prevent waste, fraud and abuse is waste, fraud and abuse. I know we're going down a rabbit hole. And you know Elon Musk is saying this right now. Right. He keeps saying this. He says at a certain point, waste is indistinguishable from fraud

and competence is indistinguishable from fraud. It's a line he keeps using on the right. And I don't like it because I think it like totally misunderstands the problem and his solution is terrible. But his point on a certain level, that the way we are running the government has made the government incredibly wasteful. Right. But they're doing it because Republicans are so mistrustful.

Right. But then he wants to light the whole fucking thing on fire and privatize it. So here's the flip side of it. Make government programs more accessible, less adversarial, you would streamline all of those processes and then on the back end, build in a more robust fraud enforcement. Yes. So in other words, you flip it. I can tell you this at the VA, that would transform that organization. If they didn't in their search for the 3% of those that were

abusing the system force 97% of the people into this hellish labyrinth, they would save a shit ton of money on that. They would save a shit ton of lives and just have more robust, streamlined fraud enforcement on the back end. It's just a simple flip of how we're viewing it. And I think it would be profound. Yeah, I'll say it even simpler. The measure of government is the people it helps, not the processes it follows. Boom.

Vars. Vars, Ezra Klein. If you just really kept that in mind, if that was your only governing model, and you just said to yourself, the only thing I wish liberals would learn from Musk is this kind of relentlessness of the middle, not lawlessness.

And you're gonna have to change a bunch of laws to do the kind of government you and I wanna see happen. But this recognition that in the middle, you might make a lot of people upset. You're gonna say no to a lot of people. It's gonna be politically painful, and it's gonna be worth it if you achieve the hard thing you're trying to achieve.

The measure of government is outcomes and not process. And we treat government. And again, whole section on the book in this, liberal legalism has evolved in a way where it believes government is legitimate based on the processes it follows. It is legitimate and also, by the way, protected from adversarial lawsuit

if it can show that at every point, it checked every single box. It's so self-protective. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And the point of government is not to check the boxes, it's to help the people. It's to get the shit out there. One other thing I wanted to ask you.

What I'm seeing in the Trump administration, right, is that they've got historians and legal scholars combing through the history of this country, finding whatever Byzantine or abstract emergency power. It's the Illegal Enemies Act. It's the, oh, we used this once in 1813, trying to get some native tribes off of land. They're using powers that have been granted under emergencies

to do sort of day-to-day governance things. And I don't like it, but is there anything to be learned from this for people who have more liberal aims and progressive aims? There very much is. And I do want to say to be fair that Democrats do this too. If you look at things like Obama's immigration executive actions, if you look at things like the student loan actions, Democrats are actually pretty good at this move as well. You go and you find a sort of- Emergency power.

You know, vaguely written word in a law, right? Like, yeah, you know, we had something to deal with public health and now you're using it to change immigration law. Okay. But an interesting thing that I noticed while reporting a case study here, and then I have this whole thing about Josh Shapiro and the I-95 and he uses an emergency declaration. This also happens around a recent disaster in Maryland with Wes Moore. And then I was like talking with Gavin Newsom

on his podcast, he's like, you talked about the I-95, what about the I-10? We did that in 10 days, like it wasn't even 12 days. Oh my God. And we were talking, I was like, if you guys are all so proud of the outcomes you get, and now they're doing rapid rebuilding under emergency decorations after the fires, if you guys are all so proud of what you can do under these emergency authorities that wipe away all of this process, and you can get these things done fast and people like it. I mean, this is like the fundamental basis on which a lot of Shapiro's like, you know, political renown is

built. He's not known so much for policies as he is for getting things done fast, right? This whole line is get shit done. Well, then what does that say about the non-emergency procedures? Like, when emergencies happen to me, I typically am not happy about them. I don't like it. I don't like it. I don't like what happens after it. I don't like what happens during it. I'm not saying they like the emergencies, they don't. But the amount I am hearing governors, and as you sort of say, at the federal level too, you see this brag about what they can do when something triggers the emergency rules. That's right.

Should actually make people really rethink the non-emergency rules because also the public likes seeing things done fast. They're impressed. Look at that. Government rebuilt this in 12 days. Right. That shit's amazing. People like it when their government works.

And they don't realize, Ezra, every problem is an emergency to someone. Yes. I say that, yeah, I have a line like this in the book that emergencies are not just crises that happen fast. They are also crises that happen slow. Climate change is an emergency. It's actually a much bigger deal than part of a bridge fell down. We are not treating it as one.

Ezra Klein, fantastic. Jon, I've loved this. This has been one of my favorite interviews by far. Thank you. I will never say mofo again without thinking nofo. That's what you've implanted into my brain. I've accepted this in you. That's the mimetic endpoint of this.

I really appreciate you spending the time. Congratulations on all the things. It's Ezra Klein, New York Times podcast, the Ezra Klein Show, co-author of Abundance with 11-year year old Derek Thompson, who is a prodigy. Derek Thompson, I can't get on board with this, man. Please come back and talk again. Add me to your group chats.

I will, I will add you to our we're going to bomb Jon Stewart group chat. There you go. You'll be there. I love the thing. You'll be right there. Ezra, pleasure. I hope to get a chance to talk to you soon. Thank you, man. Me too. Man, I'm exhausted. I just spent an hour and a half in that dude's head and I'm, I'm the amount of information, the amount of specificity. No wonder he had to Google a couple of things, but wow. I will never take wifi for granted ever again,

knowing the 14 step program that has been put in place just to get to the starting line for me, that that will ultimately be the takeaway, but really appreciated the gentleman coming on and explaining all those various things and get the book. It's called Abundance. And it really does give an awful lot to think about as far as, you know, there's an opportunity for the next iteration of what that type of governance will look like. And I think this is a great start and picking that apart. But anyway, thanks everybody

for listening. We went long so we're going to rush things out. As always, thank our lead producer, Lauren Walker, producer, Brittany Mametovic, video editor and engineer, Rob Vitolo, audio editor and engineer, Nicole Boyce, researcher and associate producer, Gillian Spear, and our executive McShane and Katie Gray and I am Jon Stewart and we will see you next week. The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart is a Comedy Central podcast. It's produced by Paramount I'm going to be a good boy.