The Young Turks - Behind The Schemes

Episode Date: September 7, 2023

Peter Navarro heads to trial with gutted defense and mounting bills. Ken Paxton faces charges from fellow Republicans at the impeachment trial. New York City’s crackdown on Airbnb and short-term rentals goes into effect. Child care is about to get more expensive, as federal funds dry up. HOST: Ana Kasparian (@AnaKasparian) SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE: ☞ https://www.youtube.com/user/theyoungturks FACEBOOK: ☞ https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER: ☞ https://www.twitter.com/theyoungturks INSTAGRAM: ☞ https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK: ☞ https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕 Merch: https://shoptyt.com Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. On July 18th, get excited. This is big. For the summer's biggest adventure. I think I just smurf my pants. That's a little too excited.

Sorry. Smurfs. Only theaters July 18th. Woo! It's up! Thank you. What's up, everyone, welcome to TYT. I'm your host, Anna Kasparian. It's a little bit of a weird day today. We had a few technical issues of the studio,

so I will be doing the show from home, obviously. In the second hour, Francesca Fiorentini will be joining me to cover a whole host of topics. A lot of news broke throughout the day. I'll comment just briefly on the whole Sidney Powell, Kenneth Cheesbrough update, but just a sneak peek on the rest of the rundown. We have some updates on Trump's former trade advisor, Peter Navarro, and his trial having to do with contempt of Congress. Really looking forward to sharing that story with you. Also, there are some updates on the now suspended Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and the impeachment trial that he is facing. He has pleaded not guilty, but there's a lot more detail to get into.

And later in the show, we'll also talk about how another state, other than Florida, has decided to utilize some of Prager universities politicized content for educational purposes. So big consequences for that. I hate the idea of politicizing education, especially in public schools. But we'll talk about that and the ramifications later in the show. But as always, just want to encourage you guys to like and share the stream if you're watching us on YouTube. Simple, free, easy way to get the message of TYT out there. You could also help support us by becoming a member by going to TYT.com slash join or you can hit that join button

if you're watching us live on YouTube as well. Thank you for your support. We always appreciate it. All right. Without further ado, let's get to Peter Navarro having yet another no good, very bad day. All right, we'll see you tomorrow and hopefully. I don't like fascists, D.C. don't like fascists. Trump's former trade advisor, Peter Navarro, was having a tough time as he faces trial for contempt of Congress charges. Now these trials can get pretty expensive. So as he was trying to solicit donations for his legal defense, he was met with a protester who let's just say has very strong views. You got help?

Please stop. Please stop. This is what's wrong with America here. www. www. Defendpetter.com. Defend. Defend.

Come on, my man. Cut it out. Let the man talk, man talk, let him talk, man. It's great. He has every right to talk. Come on, come on, don't do that, man. Let the man talk, man. Please play this on your channels.

Because this is just wrong. I'm trying to speak about serious constitutional issues with you. Clown with a whistle, which with a brough. Now, don't worry, Peter, I'm happy to play that video on the show. I just did. And look, I typically am not a fan of people preventing others from speaking, even individuals that I dislike. And to be sure, I dislike Peter Navarro a great deal. But I would just ask you to consider how he had absolutely no problem attempting to silence the voices of American voters who voted overwhelmingly to support Joe Biden over Donald Trump, certainly

in the popular vote. And I mean, Trump lost the election. Peter Navarro, much like other Trump Loyalist did not want to accept it and hatched up a scheme to essentially overturn the 2020 presidential election. Luckily he failed. And when he was asked to basically speak to the special house committee investigating January 6th, he refused to listen to the subpoena, respond to it, and had all sorts of ridiculous excuses that just did not have the legal muster to avoid what he's now experiencing, which is a trial having to do with contempt of Congress. Now, if the woman you saw in that video seemed familiar to you, it's because we've seen her before.

Just last week, as Peter Navarro was going through this whole legal process, he wanted to address the press, and she appeared, here she is. Anybody want to own up to that? Here's the problem. Hero. Who's this? Come on. Bro, you're already facing charges.

Go ahead and commit an crime. So, so, this is free speech. This is fine. I got no problem with that. I got problem with people shouting behind me. That's a problem. That's not right. Trump's not right. Trump's certainly lost and he is facing consequences of two indictments in two separate cases as a result of him refusing to accept the results and attempting to overturn the election himself. We can get to Trump a little later. But first, Why don't we talk about Peter Navarro and what he is now having to deal with as a result of ignoring Congress's calls to testify before that special house committee investigating January 6th.

Now the jury selection in the trial began this week, and here's what we know so far according to reporting from CNN. So the chosen jury is comprised of a diverse set of people in Washington, D.C., including government consultants, a contractor for NASA, someone who works in mental health services and a few retirees. Many of them said they were vaguely aware of the House January 6, 2021 committee's work, but that they didn't think it would impact their ability to serve objectively. But look, it's worth getting into or at least refreshing everyone's memory in regard to why Peter Navarro is facing these charges in the first place. And by the way, what are the charges exactly? Well, he is charged with two misdemeanor counts of contempt. Each

punishable by up to a year behind bars for refusing to provide testimony and documents to the since disbanded House Select Committee investigating the January 6th attack on the US Capitol. Now he claimed that he didn't cooperate with the committee specifically because Donald Trump, who by the way was no longer president at the time, invoked executive privilege and conversations with him. Now Navarro says that Donald Trump instructed him specifically to not not testify about matters the House committee was examining. But according to the judge overseeing the case, that defense just ain't going to cut it. So U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta voiced skepticism about the purported conversations,

which are uncorroborated, and ruled last week that Navarro cannot raise executive privilege as a defense at his trial. On the witness stand at an August 28th pre-trial hearing, Navarro had nothing in writing from the former president, and Trump has not said publicly whether he invoked the privilege. Pretty weak sauce, the judge said of the testimony. And by the way, I should note that Bannon is convicted of the same offenses. He was convicted back in July of 22 and was sentenced to four months in prison, but he is free pending the outcome of an appeal. So we'll see how that plays out. Bannon also tried to use the whole executive privilege, argument as a defense, and it did not work in his case either, partly because of the fact

that Steve Bannon wasn't even working in the White House at the time that he claims that executive privilege would essentially protect him and help prevent him from having to testify before that House Select Committee. Now, Navarro's role in attempting to overturn the election is also worth getting into because he was dumb enough to detail it in his own memoir. So that memoir, by the way, is in Trump time, a journal of America's plague year. And so in that he describes the scheme, the scheme that Navarro described, which he said Bannon dubbed the Green Bay sweep, called out, called for dragging out the process of formally continuing

electoral votes in a joint session of Congress on January 6th. Trump loyalists in the House and Senate would contest the ballots from six swing states that Biden won. Each challenge would prompt four hours of debate, resulting in a nationally televised 24-hour spectacle. So that was step one. Now, what was supposed to happen after that? Well, according to the scheme, again, the same scheme that he detailed in his own memoir. The goal was to pressure Vice President Mike Pence, who was presiding over the joint session to throw up his hands in uncertainty and return the electoral votes to the states. Eventually, the House would wind up choosing the next president. This next part's super important. But not with a straight up vote by all 435 members.

Each state delegation would cast a single vote to decide the election. And while Democrats at the time outnumbered Republicans in the chamber, the GOP controlled a majority of delegations. Hmm, gee, I wonder why it wouldn't be a straight up vote, or rather a vote on, you know, by the delegations. But anyway, Navarro again bragged about this plot, not only in his own memoir, but also in an interview with Rolling Stone on, I believe it was in June. Yes, it was in January of 2022. So here's what he said at the time during this interview with Rolling Stone. All it required was peace and calm on Capitol Hill for it to unfold. And then you have two things that went awry, Pence's betrayal, and of course the violence

that erupted on Capitol Hill, which provided Pence, McConnell, McCarthy, Pelosi, and Schumer an excuse to abort the Green Bay sweep effectively and certify the election. What planet does this guy live on? What do you mean Pelosi and Schumer abandon this operation that you hatched up? They weren't part of it to begin with, right? And this notion that you could just effectively overturn the results of the election through this insane, insane plan, honestly, is ridiculous to say the least. But I should also get to what else he said in that same interview. Again, speaking to Rolling Stone in January of 22, he said this, I have gotten no communication whatsoever from them, referring to the House Select Committee. Now, at that time,

it was true. He had not been subpoenaed yet. It's my view that they simply do not want to hear anything I have to say, because it's so contrary to their narrative. Their narrative rests on the premise that President Trump wanted to instigate violence to overthrow the election. My premise, which is fact, is that President Trump wanted only peace and calm so that we could meticulously implement the Green Bay sweep. Now, to be clear, the House Select Committee investigating January 6th didn't simply investigate the violence that took place that day. Certainly that was part of it, but the fake elector's plot was part of it as well. And the House Select Committee absolutely did want to speak to Peter Navarro about what he had detailed in his own

memoir. And so after he did that interview and after he claimed like, the House Select Committee doesn't want to talk to me because I would contradict their narrative. No, they reached out to him pretty soon after that. A month after that interview with Rolling Stone, Navarro received a subpoena that he refused to honor. In fact, he ended up pleading not guilty in this case, in this contempt of Congress case, even though it's clear that he just ignored the subpoena and refused to abide by it. And so, now he's begging for money. So he says that my legal bills just went up by another half million dollars. He said last week as he departed the federal courthouse in Washington, having failed

in his last ditch effort to have the case against him thrown out. By the time the trial finishes, I expect those legal fees to hit $750,000 he continues. Well, being a Trump lackey, as I think many co-defendants have realized can be very costly, both when it comes to your own criminal record and when it comes to your own personal finances. Now I want to go back to the protester who's been heckling him. She's a 38 year old woman who goes by the moniker, anarchy princess. And again, I really want to emphasize that I'm really not a fan of preventing people their freedom to speak. But if Navarro is bothered, by this protester exercising her First Amendment rights and is bothered by the fact that she is not

allowing him to speak. He should maybe consider the fact that he wanted to engage in the unfair scheme of going against the will of American voters who again elected Joe Biden as president of the United States. I'm not the biggest fan of Joe Biden, but I am a big fan of our democratic process could certainly use some reforms. I'm not going to lie about that. But democracy is valuable to me. Our constitution valuable to me. It's much bigger than any single politician. It's much bigger than Trump. It's much bigger than any politician that we might want as the next leader of this country. It's something that we need to fight to protect. And it's something that someone like Peter Navarro really has no respect for and had no problem,

essentially going against in an effort to keep his preferred politician in power. Again, if you don't like to be silenced, don't go around trying to silence the will and the voice of the American voters. And that's exactly what Peter Navarro tried to take part in. And I'm really happy to report that he's failed at doing that. So not only is he facing some punishment for that, for contempt of Congress specifically. But as we know, Trump and over a dozen of his own co-conspirators are facing consequences for that as well. So with that said, let's take a break. When we come back for the second hour, for the second segment, I'm going to get into another investigation, this one having to do with yet another Republican. Ken Paxton in Texas

is accused of some pretty severe misuse of funds and abuse of public office. Updates on that trial and more when we come back. as Attorney General, Warren Kenneth Paxton, used, misused, or failed to use, his official powers in a manner calculated to subvert the lawful operation of the government of the state of Texas and obstruct the fair and impartial administration of justice, thereby bringing the Office of Attorney General into scandal and disrepute to the prejudice of public confidence in the government of this state, as shown by the acts described in one or more articles. Attorney General Paxton, have you plead. Your Honor, the Attorney General is innocent,

And we played not guilty. For the first time in nearly 50 years, the Texas state Senate has transformed into a courtroom of impeachment for now suspended attorney general Ken Paxton. Now he's facing some serious charges, 16 in fact, including bribery, obstruction of justice, conspiracy, and abuse of the public's trust. Now the state house has already impeached him overwhelmingly. I'll get to those numbers in just a moment. But Paxton has been under federal investigation since October of 2020, when multiple of his top handpicked lieutenants went to the FBI with allegations of bribery and other potential crimes. In fact, here are some more details on those charges.

He put the interest of himself above the laws of the state of Texas. Lawmakers began investigating Paxton back in March after he asked for $3.3 million taxpayer money to settle a whistleblower lawsuit, filed by staffers whom Paxton fired after they went to the FBI with their corruption allegations. The 20 articles of impeachment include charges of not only misappropriation of public resources, but also bribery, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy. Now, as you saw in the opening clip, Ken Paxton has pleaded not guilty to these allegations to these charges. However, it is worth getting into the specifics of what he is accused of, not by progressives, not by Democrats, but by his own Republican colleagues, including

Republican members of the state house, including his handpicked lieutenants who by no means are progressives and are certainly individuals that he handpicked because of similar ideological opinions, but nonetheless, at the center of Paxton's impeachment is a real estate developer who the embattled AG actually helped to fend off an FBI investigation. And there was some trading taking place here, a favor for a favor, if you will. So Paxton is accused of using his office to benefit the Austin real estate developer Nate Paul, who donated $25,000 to his campaign and according to the articles of impeachment paid for his home renovations and helped him engage in an extramarital affair. So, you know, I love, I love seeing these examples of these

conservative men, you know, the party, the bastion of family values, just consistently cheating on their wives and getting caught doing it. But nonetheless, here are more on the accusations against Paxton, who again, who has already been impeached by the state house. what the key takeaways are for you and also this relationship between Paxton and the businessman, Nate Paul, if you would. Nora, well, as you mentioned, the crux of this impeachment trial is about the relationship between Attorney General Paxton and Nate Paul, a real estate investor here in Austin. Essentially, the house managers are alleging that Paxton repeatedly abused his office to help Mr. Paul, essentially letting Paul use the powers of the attorney general by influencing an outside counsel that Paxton had hired without telling the rest of his staff and he used that outside lawyer to go after the enemies of Nate Paul,

including police who had raided his house, including business rivals, including people he was involved in lawsuits with. My, my, certainly sounds like he misused his office to help a guy who, you know, was facing investigation for some serious crimes. But, you know, in return, he got all sorts of including the ability to see his mistress and it was all set up and he was aided and abetted by Nate Paul in that regard. Now, as I mentioned, he was already impeached by the state house. Now, if you're curious what the numbers were, they impeached him 121 to 23 in a vote just this past May. One of those Republican lawmakers is Republican state representative Andrew Murr, who actually provided some of the opening testimony in Ken Paxton's trial. Now, I think it's

worth listening to some of what he had to say about Paxton's relationship with Nate Paul. Let's watch. One of the hardest parts of getting older is feeling like something's off in your body, but not knowing exactly what. It's not just aging. It's often your hormones, too. When they fall out of balance, everything feels off. But here's the good news. This doesn't have to be the story of your next chapter. Hormone Harmony by Happy Mammoth is an herbal formula made with science-backed ingredients, designed to fine-tune your hormones by balancing estrogen, testosterone, progesterone, and even stress hormones like cortisol.

It helps with common issues such as hot flashes, poor sleep, low energy, bloating, and more. With over 40,000 reviews and a bottle sold every 24 seconds, the results speak for themselves. A survey found 86% of women lost weight, 77% saw an improved mood, and 100% fell like themselves again. Start your next chapter feeling balanced and in control. For a limited time, get 15% off your entire first order at happy mammoth.com with code next chapter at checkout. Visit happy mammoth.com today and get your old self back naturally. The articles reveal that the state's top lawyer engaged in conduct designed to advance the economic interests and legal positions of a friend and donor to the detriment of innocent Texans.

Mr. Paxton turned the keys of the Office of Attorney General over to Nate Paul so that Mr. Paul could use the awesome power of the people's law firm to punish and harass perceived enemies. I was raised in rural Texas where a person's honor is more important than money where integrity matters by a family deeply affected by political corruption. This is precisely the type of grave official wrong that our Texas Supreme Court has said warrants impeachment. That was a Republican state lawmaker. Now let's get into some further details about Paxton's relationship with Nate Paul. So documents filed by the House impeachment manager state that Paul hired Paxton's reported mistress at his Austin firm so Paxton could see her more easily, rather than than traveling to San Antonio where she once lived. He's also accused of using a fake Uber account so he could visit his mistress. And he also allegedly used burner phones and secret personal email accounts as well. So Uber records reflect drivers picked up Paxton under the alias of Dave Pee,

a block from his home and ferried him to his lovers or Paul's properties more than a dozen times from August 6th of 2020 until October 2nd of 2020. I should note that the courtroom has been pretty empty for the proceedings, the trial of, you know, Paxton. But there is one person in the courtroom who's calling any Republican who's working against Paxton or Rhino. And that's his wife, the same wife he cheated on with the help of Nate Paul. Sad. But nonetheless, there's more. According to a court filing, Paxton and Paul would often eat together and talk about Paul's desire to see the FBI's sealed search warrant affidavit for Paul's properties. On one occasion, when Paul expressed his desire to see the FBI search warrant affidavit, Paxton suggested that Paul try to open a records request.

The significance is that Paxton's office would control the answer regarding whether Paul got the records. And Paxton morphed the office of the attorney general into Paul's concierge law firm, the filing says. And guess what? That's not all Paxton is accused of. There's a lot more to get to. The Nate Paul relationship is just one piece of the puzzle, although I will admit it's probably the biggest issue aside from the misuse of funds. So the individuals who have essentially served as whistleblowers, his handpicked lieutenants who served as whistleblowers against him, and the Republican lawmakers who voted to impeach him, essentially argue that he had reveled in the perks that came along with his powerful office. Last year, Paxton's travels were extensive. Records show that after winning a Republican primary runoff against George P. Bush, Paxton spent two months flying to cities in the career. Caribbean and Europe, it's unclear who paid for Paxton's travel, but the trips cost taxpayers a combined $91,000 specifically for a security detail. By the way, the purpose of the trip

totally unclear. Although, I mean, this is speculation. I'm going to speculate he went to the Caribbean and Europe for a good time. I would venture to say it wasn't for official business. I could be wrong, I'm speculating here. Nonetheless, there's more detail. Last year, Paxton's lifestyle included more international trips than Texas's governor and lieutenant governor made combined and a previously unreported visit to Cutter to watch the World Cup. There are also accusations of behavior that raised eyebrows among employees at all levels of Paxton's office, including requesting special license plates but never paying the $12.50 to acquire them. I mean, Homeboy is super petty, right? He refused to share like,

a coconut dusted cake that the office gets every year for the holidays with his staff. Like the staff had grown accustomed to that. He just took the cake home for himself. Like that's the kind of guy he is. David Maxwell, the attorney general's former head of law enforcement and one of eight deputies who reported him to the FBI told investigators that Paxton once bought a $600 sports coat from a hotel store. Like who does that? from a hotel store while at a conference and then build it to the events organizer. Like you're not supposed to do an expense report and have like taxpayers fund your $600 sports coat from a hotel lobby. That's like that's not what taxpayer money is supposed to be utilized for.

But nonetheless, I shouldn't just have you guys hear what I have to say, someone who admittedly is on the left, right? Let's hear from Republican State Representative Merrigan, because this time he specifically addresses the misuse of the AG's office for personal enrichment. Earlier this year, Mr. Paxton came to the legislature seeking $3.3 million in taxpayer money to settle a whistleblower lawsuit. Mr. Paxson would not answer any questions about the underlying claims. He had successfully blocked any discovery in the case for almost two years, and he refused to justify the settlement. The House investigated the serious allegations raised by the whistleblowers. The House uncovered egregious misconduct and abuse of office by the Attorney General of the State of Texas, and voted overwhelmingly to prefer articles of impeachment to the Senate.

This is why we are here. I just want to stop for a moment and give those Republican lawmakers in the state of Texas. I never thought I would say this, a lot of credit in this very specific instance. Because what I think a lot of us have grown accustomed to is watching members of the same party provide cover for one another, even when there's bad behavior involved, even when there's alleged criminality involved. But in this particular case, having to do with suspended attorney general Ken Paxton, you have statewide lawmakers, Republicans specifically, who are willing to hold him accountable, and they deserve credit for that. It would be a much, a far better country,

if you ask me, if we were all willing to do that. When we see anyone engaging in bad behavior, including people who might be our friends, including people who might have the same ideological views as us, especially when it comes to individuals who are supposed to be public servants. Using a public servant role to enrich yourself is wrong. It was certainly wrong when Trump did it as the president of the United States to essentially funnel taxpayer money to his own personal businesses. It's certainly wrong in this particular case where you have Ken Paxton using his office to engage in all sorts of bad behavior, misuse of funds, you know, carrying out an affair with someone with the help of an individual who he was looking out for as he was facing

investigations from the FBI. So again, just want to give the Republican lawmakers credit for what they did here in the case of Ken Paxton. So what happens now? Well, a few other updates I want to share with you. His lawyers, Ken Paxton's lawyers, put forth a series of unsuccessful motions to dismiss the case. All but one failed by a vote of more than two thirds of the senators present. So that's good. Now, where did he win? Well, Paxton's lawyers did succeed in one key motion, preventing their client from being compelled to testify. So the lieutenant governor, Dan Patrick, who is acting as a judge in the impeachment trial, ruled that Paxton could not be forced to testify. But other than that, the motions to dismiss the case, all of that stuff. did not really stand, didn't work, and this trial will continue. And so we'll give you all updates as we learn more, but things are not looking good for Ken Paxton. You know you're in a lot of trouble when your own party turns against you to the extent that lawmakers in the state of Texas have turned against Ken Paxton.

Let's move on to some other news. There's a lot more to get to today, including some good news actually, coming out of New York. Let's talk about short-term rentals and I think some regulations that make a lot of sense. I hope that they spread in other parts of the country. of Airbnb's and short term rentals are expected to disappear from a rental platforms as New York City begins enforcing tighter restrictions amidst a growing housing shortage. Now it's important to keep in mind that these regulations had passed a while ago, but the enforcement of these regulations hadn't really been a thing until literally this week.

So for years, the city has maintained that existing laws prevent people from renting out homes to guests for less than 30 days, again, short term rentals, unless the host is present during the stay. Okay, the city also says that no more than two guests are allowed to stay at a time and that they must have access to the entire home. So these were the regulations that passed as part of local law 18. Now, there continues to be tons of listings though for these short term rentals, whole apartments, whole homes. And the city has argued that companies like Airbnb, are not policing their platforms more aggressively to root out the violators, the individuals who are working against local laws. So city official claimed back in July, in a July court

filing that more than half of Airbnb's 85 million net revenue in 2022 from short-term rentals in New York City came from activity that is illegal. Now, Airbnb disputes this claim, But I would venture to say that there's certainly Airbnb still operating illegally in New York City, which is why they decided to get far more aggressive in enforcing these rules. Now again, the rules known as Local Law 18 were passed back in January, but enforcement of the new rules didn't begin until Tuesday of this week. So this follows a series of court challenges that were brought forth by these, you know, apps like Airbnb. And the rule requires host to register with the city to even be allowed to rent short term on a short term basis. So here is a little more detailed on what these rules entail. You cannot rent out your entire apartment for less than 30 days and hosts can only offer short term rentals if they remain with their guests in the apartment.

Hosts face fines of up to $5,000 per violation. There are about 40,000 Airbnbs in New York, but rampant abuse, that's where host rents. to dozens of units as kind of shadow hotel rooms that led to a lot of neighbor and building complaints. City council members also say Airbnbs have raised rents in New York since they've taken all that inventory off the normal rental market. Now hosts say registration is almost impossible. Many have waited months for approval. Thousands of Airbnb listings have already started disappearing from the website. City councils in Dallas, Philadelphia, New Orleans have passed similar rules. So far, they haven't had much effect because they're so hard to enforce.

No, look, he is right that they are hard to enforce. But what New York is doing is they're essentially putting the onus on these companies to follow the law. So in order to collect fees associated with short-term stays, Airbnb, Verbo, Booking.com, and other companies must check that a host registration application has been approved. Hosts who violate the rules, as you heard in the video, could face fines of up to $5,000 for repeat offenders, and platforms could be fined up to $1,500 for transactions involving illegal rentals. Now, it's worth getting into how many people will be affected. And I think it's important to get into this number, not because my heart breaks for, you know, the people who

are making money doing these short term rentals in the middle of a terrible housing shortage, but because it shows you just how widespread these practices have been at a time when there was a housing crisis. There are currently more than 40,000 Airbnbs in New York, according to inside Airbnb, which tracks listings on the platform. As of June 22nd, 434 of those were short-term rentals, defined, I should say, defined as places that can be booked for fewer than 30 days. City officials estimated there were roughly 10,800 Airbnb listings as of March of 2023 that were illegal short-term rentals. They have argued that renting those homes to tourists and visitors instead of New Yorkers exacerbates the city's acute housing shortage and

makes it even more expensive to live there. I mean, can anyone really deny that claim? That is absolutely true. If you have a housing shortage, having a certain percentage of these apartments Dedicated to short-term rentals makes absolutely no sense. It exacerbates the housing crisis and approximately 73 out of every 10,000 people in New York City currently lack a home. Housing availability is extremely low. New York City's housing stock has only increased 4% since 2010, not nearly enough to keep up with its 22% increase in jobs. And from 2017 to 2021, New York City permitted 13 homes for every 1,000 residents in 2017, while Boston added 28, Washington, D.C. added 43, and Seattle added 64.

And as we all know, lower stock of housing leads to much higher housing prices. That's why it's so unbelievably expensive to rent in a lot of these big cities that have very strict zoning laws. which make it difficult to build new housing and which are essentially unregulated as it pertains to these short-term rentals. Half of the city's households, by the way, in New York City do not even have enough money to comfortly hold down an apartment, access sufficient food and basic health care and get around. And that's according to a report that came out back in April. So look, it is unsurprising to me that these companies have been fighting back tooth and nail against these types of regulations or the enforcement of these types of regulations. So the company sued New York City back in June, but a judge dismissed the case in August ruling that the restrictions were entirely rational, which I 1,000% agree with.

But Airbnb isn't the only entity that does not agree with the judge or these decisions. Other arguments against these regulations include, well, the change will make short-term rentals a lot less attractive for many people coming to New York. You know, if you're going to have to, have a smaller number of these short term rentals available, that's going to drive up the cost of these short term rentals. Sure, that might be the case. Or people are going to be forced into renting hotels instead. But I mean, it's a balancing act. What's more important? Ensuring that tourists get the cheapest possible, you know, cheapest possible place to stay as they're traveling or to ensure that the people actually living in New York City have an affordable place to live in. I would say the latter is more important. Other critics say that the city is bending to the lobbying of the hotel industry. That could be true. The Hotel Trades Council, which is an

influential group in local politics and an ally of Eric Adams, has long fought the expansion of the platforms. I don't deny that. I think that's probably true. But I also think it's true that something that might benefit the hotel industry could also benefit the people of New York who literally need not short term rentals, but apartments to rent. That is the real issue here. And this is my favorite part because short term rental hosts are also concerned. So I'm going to share an anecdote. Marginette Moore Roberts rents out a two bedroom apartment in her Brooklyn Brownstone. She lives in the home's other unit with her husband and team daughter, But because her family doesn't occupy the second two bedroom unit, it can no longer be listed

on Airbnb for stays of less than 30 days. So Moore Roberts says she isn't against the rule change entirely, but she wants to see the law reworked to basically make an exception for her with more nuance to protect renters with just one property like herself. By the way, she has two properties. She has a property she's living in and a second apartment that she's been renting out for for short term rentals, let's be clear about that. They've used a very blunt object when they should have used a scalpel, she says. She's currently out of work and she says a drop in income from the short term rental compounds the financial stress.

Putting us all in that same bucket of players is really unfair and not helpful. But I disagree. She could easily rent the second apartment, not as a short term rental, but as a long term rental. She would still have a steady stream of income if she does that. It's just that the income might not be as much because you could charge far more for short-term rentals. But again, what is more important? Housing the people who actually live in New York or providing even more income for someone who is fortunate enough to own a property she lives

in and a second property that she rents out. Just rent it out to a long-term tenant. You're gonna be right. The people who are homeless right now, they're not doing okay. They need a place to live. The people who are working so hard just to make ends meet but can't find an affordable apartment, let's look out for them. I think that's important. So I'm really happy to see that New York City is not only passing these types of regulations, but more importantly, finding mechanisms in which they can enforce these types of regulations. And these types The types of policies are in fact spreading across the country as well. Dallas has limited short term rentals to specific neighborhoods to avoid disruptive and dangerous parties.

Elsewhere, the Canadian province of Quebec and Memphis, Tennessee, among others, now require licenses for short term rentals. In San Francisco, the amount of time someone can list their entire residence for rent on Airbnb is limited to 90 days each year. Amsterdam puts that limit at 30 nights per year, Paris at 120 days. So good news all around, Santa Monica, California banned renting apartments for less than 30 days as well. Obviously this idea is spreading and it's because of the low stock of housing. So either we build a lot more housing or we restrict what our current housing inventory is used for. Do we use it to enrich people who are fortunate enough to own two properties or more than, you know, two properties? Or do we use those properties as shelter, as housing for people who

actually need it? Again, I think the latter is more important. Anyway, tell me what you think in the comment section. We got to take a break for now. When we come back, we have a lot more to get to, including, well, our fragile, unaffordable child care system is about to get worse. If you can believe it, I'm going to tell you how when we come back. Welcome back to the show Anna Casparian with you and I'm looking forward to talking about the reality of what it's like to be apparent in America. I'm not a parent in America. I'm not a parent. Part of the reason why I'm not a parent is because I literally don't know how parents do it in a country that offers very little support to them. And I think this story that I'm about to do is a perfect example of what I'm referring to. Billion dollars in relief funding from Congress helped child care programs across the country rebound after the pandemic.

But most of those funds will expire in September, potentially causing many to lose access to child care. Child care businesses are going to be put into a position of having to either raise fees on parents or lower the wages of their child care teachers. And that will likely lead to more teachers leaving the field. If you thought that child care in America was already unaffordable, fragile, difficult to attain, well, it's about to get a lot worse if you can believe it because states are now running out of coronavirus stimulus money, tens of billions of dollars that were allocated specifically to help prop up the child care system during the pandemic. Now that record in investment did in fact help the industry. Not enough if you ask me because child care was still a big problem. A lot of women were unable to go back to work due to the unaffordable nature of child care.

However, the money running out means that there will be even more closures of various facilities that offer childcare to American families. Now according to a study done by the Century Foundation, with the last of that money expiring this month, an estimated 70,000 child care programs or about one in three could close as a result of lost funding, causing 3.2 million children to lose care. That translates to 10,000 $10.6 billion in lost U.S. economic activity, according to the researchers. Now, how does those two things even connect, right? How does this have anything to do with the economy? Well, think about it. If mothers are unable to find child care for their kids,

they're not going to be able to go out there and work. And that has been a big problem since the pandemic. I mean, it was a problem even before the pandemic, but it's even worse now. Experts say that daycare fees, which are already among the highest in the world, are expected to rise even higher in the coming months as the supply of child care dwindles. And so the child care shortage in America was further exacerbated by the pandemic itself. And even with the tens of billions of dollars in funding to essentially prop up these facilities, many of them still failed to survive and suffered closures. In fact, let me give you the receipts on that.

An estimated 20,000 child care centers or one in 10 nationwide, permanently closed in the first two years of the pandemic, according to the Century Foundation, hundreds of thousands of workers lost their jobs as a result, and many more quit for less demanding higher paying jobs. And that's the other thing. We don't have a system in place that actually values the child care workers. In fact, in some cases, they get paid less than fast food workers.

So why do a job that's even more taxing both physically and mentally if you're not getting paid much to do it, right? So they're having a problem with a shortage of child care workers, a shortage of child care facilities, it is a disaster. And again, this is happening with the backdrop of dozens of red states essentially outlawing abortion or severely restricting it, essentially forcing women to carry out pregnancies to term when they might not be financially prepared to do so. So think about how that's going to affect people in the kind of environment where our politicians do not take, you know, the idea of a support system for families, for children seriously. So today the industry, the child care industry,

remain short 40,000 positions from early 2020 levels. Experts say another 232,000 jobs could be on the line as government funding expires. Other estimates actually paint an even more dire and disastrous picture. So overall, the United States is already short about 3.6 million child care slots. And that's according to child care aware, a nonprofit advocacy group. And look, there are other facilities that are, you know, more directed or targeted toward low income families. You might have seen them around your neighborhood. There are houses that are kind of converted to child care facilities. I know I've seen them all across Los Angeles

growing up. I still see them today. However, they're also being hit and they're at the highest risk of closure. More than 97,000 licensed family child care homes have shuttered since since the early 2000s, cutting the overall industry by nearly half. Department of Health and Human Services figures show. Now another several thousand more are expected to go dark this year, experts say, as pandemic era funding expires. And so again, this has really created an added financial burden that really is untenable for a lot of American families.

This is happening at a time of inflation, at a time when Groceries are far more expensive at a time when gas is far more expensive, at a time when housing is already astronomical alone. And childcare costs were ticking up much faster than inflation itself. Daycare and preschool fees have risen 6% in the past year, nearly double the overall inflation rate of 3.2% government data show. Last year, US child care costs ate up 23%. No, no, guys, guys, no, we gotta, I'm gonna force you. you to like really, really take that in, okay? Because every financial planner will tell you affordable housing means that you're only spending about 30% of your income on the housing.

Okay, no one's doing that. Everyone's spending way more than that on their housing, unless they're living with like 12 other families. Let's keep it real. And then on top of that, if you are a person who really values the idea of family formation, you really wanted to have kids, you are spending 23% of your income on child care alone. Okay, how exactly can our conservative politicians who claim to really value children so much, who really, really want to encourage people to have more kids? How are they going to turn around and say, no, no, you should like, why is that the people are deciding against having kids? We should pressure them to do it. I don't know.

maybe create the kind of country and the kind of environment that supports people who want to have families and who want to have kids. That's the best way to encourage, you know, people to have children. You're not going to do it through shame. Like shame tactics annoy me to no end. I can't stand it when the left does it. I can't stand it when the right does it, okay? Address the actual issue. And in this particular case, the actual issue is that having children in America, is extremely expensive and for a lot of American workers untenable because you need a dual income household just to survive, okay? And that means that you need to find childcare if you have kids. You can't just leave them home alone. So let's talk about that a little bit. What are

politicians doing on a federal level? Not much. So Democrats in Congress are calling for $16 billion in emergency child care funding this year, though such efforts appear unlikely at a time when Republicans are pushing to slash safety net programs. Keep in mind that they don't even want to fund the government. We're going to have another government shut down by the end of the month. I guarantee it. That's a bold prediction, but I don't think it's that bold if you've been covering politics for 17 years and you know how this story goes. So like the idea of Democrats getting what they want with this $16 billion in emergency funding, like it's laughable to me, it's not going to happen. Also on a federal level, Joe Biden just four months ago signed an executive order urging

government agencies, federal government agencies to like come up with the resources. Like move some money around, see if you could find the resources to essentially provide additional resources for childcare. Okay, that's just obviously not enough. And to be fair to Biden, he's really limited in regard to what he can do on the executive level, you really do need Congress to appropriate the resources necessary for this. So look, long story short, on a federal level, a lot of disappointment for American families. Now, there are some moves being made in some states. We have some details on that. Let's watch the

next video. In a call to action, many states are now passing their own legislation. For example, Last year, Alabama approved a $40 million investment in pre-K and child care, while Nevada announced a $50 million investment to make it more affordable for lower-income families. When families don't have reliable child care, they're more likely to be absent from work. They're less likely to be focused and is productive. So it is really beneficial for families to have high quality child care, but it's equally beneficial for businesses. So that gives me a little bit of hope and at least a path to pursue if we want to fund

childcare and make the situation a little better for parents. And look, let's keep it real, I don't have kids, right? So I don't really have any stake in the game. However, I do care about my community, I care about people in this country, I love this country, I want people to feel comfortable having children if that is what they want for themselves. And so maybe there is a path forward on a local level, getting involved in local politics, whether it be pressuring your city council to appropriate the funding for your city or for your county, whether it be pressuring state lawmakers to do something about this issue.

I think you're likely to have a lot more progress if you go in that direction. I think we focus a little too much on national politics, especially because of the show we do, obviously, like of course we're going to cover national politics. But there are certain areas where I think we're going to reach a dead end if we think Congress is going to come through with the resources necessary to help ordinary people out. And in this case, help ordinary families out who desperately need child care. So get involved. If you can attend those city council meetings, air your grievances with them. Believe me, you're much more likely to get a response and see some action if you get involved in your local community.

And in the meantime, we need to think of better strategies on a national level. We need to create, you know, the critical mass necessary, organize the critical mass necessary to apply enough pressure to our federal politicians to actually do right by American families and make this situation a little better so people can actually afford child care. When you compare us to other countries, especially countries like Denmark, I mean, we look like a joke. You can't on one hand claim that you care about family formation, which is what we hear from Republicans all the time, while simultaneously ignoring one of the biggest issues that American families are confronted with in this country. And again, that's unaffordable child care. All right, we got to take a break. When we come back, Francesca Fiorentini joins me for the second hour. I'm going to talk a little bit about Prager You and how their content will be utilized in public school. and yet another red state. We'll tell you which one when we come back.

Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks. Support our work, listen to ad-free, access members-only bonus content, and more by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at apple.com slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Jan Huger, and I'll see you soon.