The Young Turks - Budging on the Budget

Episode Date: August 11, 2021

Without a single Republican vote, the Senate approves the $3.5 trillion budget blueprint. However, Joe Manchin voices his “serious concerns” about the $3.5 trillion budget after the Senate’s approval. Democrats introduce a bill to force the largest corporations to pay their fair share. Every single Democratic senator voted on a symbolic measure that would punish localities that defund the police. The Texas House Speaker signs warrants to arrest the 52 wayward Democrats. 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. Welcome friends. You're watching The Young Turks. I'm your host, Anna Kasparian, and we have pretty big show ahead for you guys. In hour two, John Iderola, host of The Damage Report, will be joining me to help me do some of these stories, share our analysis and our thoughts on what's in the news today. In the first hour, we'll talk about how Elizabeth Warren has proposed new legislation to ensure the corporations pay a minimum tax, but I'll explain why she and Angus King, who also took part in that proposal, get no cookies. So get a load of that story later in the first hour. We'll also talk about the school district in Tennessee that has parents so furious about a mask mandate for elementary students that they're literally. threatening health care professionals to their faces. So we got some fun video to share on that story and more. But before we get to any of that, just wanted to encourage you guys to like

and share the stream if you're watching us on YouTube. If you're not, maybe go on YouTube and like it and share the stream anyway. That would really, really help us out with the algorithm, you know, the internets. They like it. They like it when you like things and share it. We like it when you like things to share it. So thank you in advance for doing that. And with no further ado, why don't we move on to our first story. The Senate has officially approved a $3.5 trillion budget blueprint. Now this is a resolution, meaning that they haven't actually voted on the final legislation yet.

But this is the reconciliation bill that we've been talking about for months and months. The very bill that includes all of the agenda items in Biden's infrastructure package that didn't actually make it in the bipartisan infrastructure package. Now, that includes much of what was, again, left out of Biden's proposals in his infrastructure proposal. And of course, not a single GOP lawmaker in the Senate voted in favor of it, but that was to be expected. Again, this is the $3.5 trillion bill that includes things like child care, elder care. Here, let me give you a list of provisions that are included that was provided by Bernie Sanders to Jeff Stein of the Washington Post. It includes child tax benefits, universal pre-K, paid family and medical leave, tuition-free community college, lower prescription drug costs, dental, hearing, vision, Medicare expansion, housing, home care, major climate action, immigration reform, specifically pertaining to DACA, recipients.

It also includes lower Medicare age, meaning that it seeks to expand Medicare to cover more individuals, Obamacare expansion, increasing physical supply, and also, I'm gonna keep it real. I don't know what increasing physical supply means. But it does have important provisions that do fund certain things that help ordinary Americans rather than corporate America, and where would the revenue come from? It would come from a beefed up IRS, meaning that it would be funded to do the audits necessary on tax dodgers at the very top.

It would tax the rich, tax corporations, and also implement fees on polluters, and it would include Medicare negotiations. Now that's a summary of the bill. The reason why we're giving you a summary is because we don't have the actual legislation in front of us yet, because all they did was vote on a blueprint. They didn't vote on the end legislation, they just voted on this blueprint. And it passed with every Democratic senator voting in favor of it. So that's positive news, except we're already hearing that while some of these corporate

Democrats in the Senate voted in favor of the resolution, they're unlikely to vote in favor of the final bill because they have issues with, let's keep it real, taxing the rich. Now, the chamber's approval of the budget framework came after an hours long spectacle known as Voterama. The process is where senators are allowed to offer an unlimited number of largely meaningless and non-binding provisions. So non-binding means that nothing's going to happen, right? They propose these provisions, they debate the provisions, they give their floor speeches about these provisions, but at the end of the day, these amendments to the resolution are, in fact, non-binding. Now, Senator Ron Wyden, who's the chair of the Senate Finance Committee,

offered an amendment expressing support for tax increases on the nation's richest 0.1%. The measure actually failed. It failed. Why did it fail? Because Senators Kirsten Cinema, Janine Shaheen, and Maggie Hassan joined every Republican in voting no. So that's a red flag because that made it very clear that there are several Democratic lawmakers in the Senate who have a problem with increasing taxes on the rich in order to pay for some of the provisions in this more robust bill. Now it's now being referred to as a budget bill. It was originally referred to as the second half of the infrastructure bill, the reconciliation

version that allows for its passage with a simple majority in the Senate. But it's clear that Kirsten Cinema, who has no problem infuriating her own base, her own constituents, would fight this legislation when it comes down to a final vote in the Senate. The $3.5 trillion budget resolution now heads to the House, which can either pass the measure as is or amend it and send it back to the Senate. Democratic Majority Leader Steny Hoyer announced Tuesday that the lower chamber will cut its recess short to take up the measure on August 23rd. So the real question now is what is likely to happen once this legislation makes its way to

the House because there has unfortunately also been some pushback from corporate Democrats in the House. Now in the House, Democrats do have a majority. It isn't a large enough majority to prevent a block of corporate Democrats from stopping its passage, so we'll see what happens there. But understand that both in the Senate and the House, you have corporate Democrats who plan to stand in the way, and that's a huge, huge problem. Now, the other problem is you have corporate media and the way that it frames these types of stories, these types of proposals. On one hand, you have the slim down bipartisan infrastructure bill, which includes corporate

handouts, which includes privatizing public infrastructure. And it seems like the media has been pretty favorable in their coverage toward that bipartisan bill. It's historic, it's historic, oh my gosh, we never thought that Democrats or Republicans could work together to pass anything. I got news for you, when it comes to corporate handouts, they'll work together to pass anything. Now, the way that they talk about the $3.5 trillion budget deal, that's also fascinating. Now, pay close attention to how CNN framed both pieces of legislation when they covered this story.

A two-headed monster is making its way through the U.S. Senate. On one track, a $1.2 trillion infrastructure package, poised for a final vote late tonight or early tomorrow morning. And then on the other, a $3.5 trillion budget resolution, which was just released today. A two-headed monster? It's an interesting way of framing legislation that improves infrastructure. And in the case of the $3.5 trillion proposal improves the lives of ordinary Americans through legislation, which honestly hasn't happened in a long, long time. But let's watch a little more of CNN's coverage on this. because some of their reporting is important, especially the reporting that calls out the Democratic lawmakers who have a problem with increasing taxes on the wealthy in order to pay for all those provisions that we desperately need. The Senate also set in the coming days to pass the $3.5 trillion budget blueprint that unlocks the ability to pass the second piece, packed with progressive priorities through the Senate on a simple majority vote.

The most significant legislation for American family since the era of the New Deal and the Great Society. Setting up weeks of closed-door negotiations over a package set to include home and child care, free community college, universal pre-K, paid leave, and even a pathway to citizenship for certain undocumented immigrants. But with the barest majorities in both chambers, no easy path ahead. Despite as tension between the wings of the Democratic Party ramps up in the House, where moderates in a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi are pressing leaders to pass the Senate infrastructure bill now, saying, quote, the country cannot afford unnecessary delays. Immediately, drawing sharp rebuttals from progressives who refuse to support that bill until the second measure is ready for passage.

Pelosi making clear the bipartisan bill will go nowhere until that second bill is complete. Whatever you can achieve in a bipartisan way, bravo. We salute it, we applaud it, we hope that it will have passed soon. But at the same time, we're not going forward with leaving people behind. Now the real question is, will Nancy Pelosi stand her ground as House Speaker? She claims that she will not allow for a floor vote on the bipartisan infrastructure bill unless both pieces of legislation, the infrastructure bill and the budget bill, make their way to the House. But here's the issue, as you saw in that report, you have corporate Democrats in the House who are urging, urging the House Speaker to allow for a floor vote on the bipartisan bill immediately, regardless of where we're at with the $3.5 trillion budget bill.

And that is a problem, and we should name them by name, because we do have some more information about the letter that they sent her, and we should know who they are. So, a group of six moderate Democrats, they're conservative, corporate Democrats, of course, has started circulating a letter addressed to Speaker Nancy Pelosi that urges her to bring the bipartisan legislation to the House floor for a vote as soon as possible. And here's what the letter says. We must bring the bipartisan infrastructure bill to the House floor for a stand-alone vote. This once in a century investment deserves its own consideration without regard to the other legislation. Separately, as we begin the reconciliation process, we have concerns about the specific components of that potential package, meaning we don't like the $3.5 trillion package.

The $3.5 trillion package includes tax increases for individuals making more than $400,000 a year and for corporations. And we're not like in favor of that, you know? These are people who help fund our campaigns. These are people who have more sway than our constituents who overwhelmingly support the $3.5 trillion bill based on polling. But, you know, we listen to our donors, and we protect our donors, and our donors don't want tax increases. They talk about the spending, right? Pay close attention, because they'll never say, of course, they'll never say, we're looking out for our corporate donors. They don't want to pay more in taxes.

What they will say is, we're worried about the deficit. The deficit, guys, the deficit. We're so concerned about the deficit. So that's why we're, you know, raising some red flags here. But let's vote on that corporate giveaway bipartisan infrastructure bill first. Let's do it as a standalone bill. So the question is, will House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stand her ground? Or will she cave to these corporate Democrats?

And who are they? The letters being circulated by conservative Democratic representatives, Josh Gottheimer, Jared Golden, Kurt Schrader, and also Vicente Gonzalez, Ed Case, and Philmon Vela from Texas. So those are the lawmakers who signed on to that letter. They want a standalone vote on that infrastructure bill. They do not support, it's already very clear, the $3.5 trillion budget bill that includes everything that actually benefits the lives of working Americans. And so it's important to know who our friends are, who our enemies are, who looks out for

corporate interests and who looks out for their own constituents and ordinary Americans. We don't know how this is going to play out, but progressives do have some leverage here. If progressives withhold their vote on the bipartisan infrastructure deal and ensure that they also get a vote on the budget deal, I think that all of that hard work, all of that campaigning to get them elected as they were primary and corporate Democrats will pay off. They need to hold their ground. They need to stand their ground. And I think that they, Progressive specifically, have the ability to do it, and they'll

have my full support if they do. There's no reason we should allow corporate Democrats to be the ones who have all the sway over the future of this country, over the future of the infrastructure bill. If you want the corporate handouts and the corporate goodies, you gotta give us something in return. That's what progressives should be saying, and they are saying it to be fair. The question is, will they hold their ground? We'll see.

All right, moving on to another component to this story that I think is worth discussing. I'm gonna focus on Joe Manchin specifically. Wow, my favorite West Virginian. Conservative Democratic Senator Joe Manchin has signaled that he will not, in fact, support his own party's agenda in the budget proposal. proposal that was just passed in the Senate in the form of a resolution. So the resolution is a blueprint, it's not the final piece of legislation. The resolution is something that luckily every Democratic senator just voted in favor of, which means that we finally got past another obstacle in regard to the $3.5 trillion plan.

Now Manchin did vote in favor of it, however, immediately after voting in favor of it, he said, look, there are some issues here. There are issues that impact my corporate donors. I don't like it. So he doesn't say that explicitly, but that's what's implied. Mansion provided a key vote over unanimous Republican opposition to approve the blueprint, which allows Senate Democrats to create an expansive package that they hope will fund climate change, health care, and education measures while increasing taxes on wealthy people and corporations. But, but this is what's important, less than four hours after, he voted in favor of this mansion issued a statement declaring, quote, serious concerns about the grave consequences facing West Virginians and every American family, if Congress decides to spend another $3.5 trillion. Oh, are you worried about how that's going to affect West Virginians? Is Mansion really concerned about that?

Or is Manchin concerned about his own political future? You know, is he concerned about his corporate donors? The billionaires, the billionaires that he has meetings with, like the billionaires he was talking to when he was trying to entice them to bribe his fellow Republican colleagues to work with him to give the American people the illusion of bipartisanship. Now, Manchin doesn't care about West Virginians. There I said it. because the $3.5 trillion proposal that he's now speaking out against would overwhelmingly benefit the lives of West Virginians and not just West Virginians of working Americans. It's not the new deal, I'm not going that far, and anyone who claims it is, is a clown,

because there are no systemic changes in that proposal. However, there's quite a bit of funding to the tune of $3.5 trillion that would help families, that would help elderly people, that would help individuals who don't have health care right now, would expand Medicare to cover more people. Medicare would be more robust and it would cover more of what people need covered. Like dental care, for instance. I mean, how is he going to argue that West Virginians wouldn't benefit from that legislation? Obviously, he's lying. What is he really worried about?

Well, he's worried about the pay force. He's worried about raising taxes on the privileged, on the wealthy, on the corporations. The very people who, you know, some years pay nothing in federal taxes and, in fact, even receive a refund. So let me give you more. So the blueprint now heads to the house, and we'll see what happens in the house. They will take up, they'll actually return to the capital earlier than expected. They're on recess right now, but they're planning on coming back by August 23rd to take up this measure. Now, it would pave the way, as I mentioned, to expand Medicare, to include dental, health, and vision benefits.

It would also fund a host of climate change programs, which we clearly, desperately, need right now, it would provide free kindergarten and community college. I'm sure the fine people of West Virginia have no interest in that, no interest in free pre-kindergarten or community college. I'm sure they have no interest in, you know, if they have Medicare of Medicare being expanded to cover more of their needs. I'm sure they have no interest in that. I mean, Joe Manchin, speaking on behalf of West Virginians would know better than I would, right? West Virginians want No help at all. I mean, they're suffering in poverty right now, but they don't want, they don't want any of this.

Joe Manchin knows better. Senator Bernie Sanders explained why this legislation is so important. Listen. People want a government which represents all of us and not just the few. And this legislation is going to ask the wealthiest people. in our country to start paying their fair share of taxes so that we can address the needs of working families, the elderly, the children, the sick and the poor. And despite what some of my Republican colleagues may be saying, no one in America who makes less than

$400,000 a year will pay a nickel more in federal taxes. In fact, what we are looking at in this budget proposal is an historic tax cut for working families and the middle class. I love what Senator Sanders said there, but remember he specifically cited Republican colleagues. Republicans are not part of the equation on this 3.5 trillion dollar proposal. This is something that's going to pass through reconciliation, meaning that it will pass or it can pass with a simple majority in the Senate. And the Senate is split 50-50, meaning that if every Democrat votes in favor of it, Kamala Harris, the vice president, can come in and break the tie, and it gets passed

in the Senate. The attention should be focused on the likes of Joe Manchin and other corporate Democrats in the Senate. People like Kirsten Cinema, Mark Warner, John Tester. I mean, the list goes on and on. These are people that we should be worried about. People who want to stand in the way of passing this legislation because it includes tax increases for the rich. And that's what Mansion's concerned about. He's not concerned about West Virginia. Oh, this is going to hurt West Virginians. No, it's not. He knows it's not. He's worried it's going to hurt his donors. and then, of course, in turn, negatively affect him in his political career. Homeboy is already fundraising for his reelection campaign.

He needs those donors. Does he need West Virginians? Apparently not. Because he's speaking on their behalf and telling the American people that West Virginians don't want a fairer system, that West Virginians don't want help with child care, with elder care, with Medicare. It's fascinating, fascinating stuff. By the way, Joe Manchin just want to remind you of a story we did last week.

You know, he benefits handsomely off of our inaction on climate change. In fact, he makes half a million dollars a year from one of the dirtiest coal plants in West Virginia. And yes, that's more than twice his salary as a U.S. Senator. Should also take a look at who funds Joe Manchin. That's super relevant to this story. So this is from Open Secrets, and it shows his fundraising from 2015 to 2020. And if you can see there, the vast majority of his contributions come from large individual contributors. Okay, so more than $5.6 million, 58% of his campaign donations come from large individual donors.

Then you have PACs. Small dollar donors, oh, would you look at that? Only 4.02% of his campaign donations come from small donors. I wonder why. You know, as someone who feels confident speaking on behalf of West Virginians, it's kind of weird that such a small portion of his fundraising comes from individuals. Weird, really weird. You know, you would think that as a man who has his finger on the pulse for West Virginians,

they would provide more funding for his elections, his reelection campaigns. But it looks like he's mostly funded by big industry. Let me give you some more examples. If Manchin runs for re-election in 2024, which he will, he will likely face challenges from both the right and from his left, as some progressive Democrats hope to replace him with one of their own. His primary campaign has already begun fundraising and clocked in with roughly $638,000 through the end of September 2020.

Now, who has been funding him, like specific companies? Well, remember, the $3.5 trillion budget proposal includes funding for climate action. You know, you don't like that. The American Chemistry Council, whose members include companies like Shell and Exxon, spent $200,000 to support Mansion in his 2018 campaign. It's a lot of money, seems like he cares a lot about what they think. Much of that cash came from PACs affiliated with oil, and natural gas companies, including Valero Energy Corporation, National Fuel Gas Company,

and DTE Energy, which have long supported Mansions' political career. Those are his buddies, he's looking out for them. But, you know, he won't say that publicly. He'll just tell you what West Virginians want when it's the opposite of what they're actually saying. Also, only two industries, securities and investment, and lawyers and law firms contributed more to Manchin throughout his career. And some of these campaign contributions are provided through law firms to help hide the industries

or the individuals helping to fund his campaign. So when you see lawyers or law firms as one of the top contributors, that's what's really going on. This is all to say that Joe Manchin isn't speaking out against important legislation because he's worried about bipartisanship. He's also not worried about being a democratic lawmaker in a red state like West Virginia. When you look at polling, every poll over and over again shows that the majority of Americans, ordinary Americans, are in favor of Biden's original infrastructure proposal, which got cut down to the corporate handout bill that the bipartisan an infrastructure bill represents right now. But all of those positive provisions that the majority

of Americans want, that's now in the budget proposal. And Joe Manchin telling us that ordinary Americans don't want that and that it's harmful to them is honestly laughable when you take a good, hard look at what really motivates him and what really drives his commentary on this legislation. Sure, he's worried about re-election, but not because he's running in a red state. He's worried about re-election because the very people who made him, who have given him a political career, his corporate donors, don't want him to support a bill that would increase taxes on corporations and the wealthy. That's what's really at play.

And if anyone in the media tells you otherwise, they're lying to you. We got to take a break when we come back. We'll talk about lawmakers who are trying to tax the rich, but do they deserve any cookies for that? I say no, and I'll explain why. Welcome back to TYT, Anna Casparian with you. If you're watching us on YouTube, please like and share the stream, because it helps to get more eyeballs on this show. And I love eyeballs. Who doesn't love eyeballs, right? Eyeballs are fun. All right, well, let's move on to our next story, because I

I have a shocking take. There are lawmakers who are trying to raise taxes on corporations, but I think that they don't deserve cookies for it. What? Is Anna taken in that Clinton cash? Is that what's going? No, that's not what's going on, okay? So let me give you the deeds.

Congressional lawmakers have proposed new legislation that would ensure that the wealthiest, most prosperous corporations in this country pay a minimum tax. a minimum tax because the tax cuts for the rich under the Trump administration rolled back taxes for corporations to the point where companies like Amazon can get away with paying zero in federal taxes. And so in comes Senators Elizabeth Warren and Angus King, along with Representative Don Bayer from Virginia, and they announced in their bill that they dubbed the real corporate

profits tax act of 2021, that lawmakers said that the measure will ensure the country's biggest companies do not get away with paying nothing in taxes. That sounds great. No one should get away with paying nothing in taxes unless your income is so low that paying anything in taxes would further worsen your situation. But that's not who we're talking about here. We're talking about wealthy corporations that have gotten away with paying nothing in taxes. The lawmakers said the bill will apply to more than 1,000 public companies and all private companies reporting more than $100 million in book income to shareholders. Under the bill, which Democrats said would raise roughly $700 billion in revenue over

10 years, a 7% surtax would be implemented per dollar in book income above $100 million. So is this good? Is this bad? How do I feel about it? I think that this is pretty weak. I think that it's incredibly weak, in fact. I think the likelihood of this bill passing is slim. And if these lawmakers want to use any political capital on anything worthwhile, they should focus on something else. So I'll give you those details. But first, I want to make it abundantly clear. No cookies. No cookies for you, I'm sorry. So let's put that last graphic back up again, because there's an important number that I want you all to focus on. So it would raise roughly $700 billion in revenue over 10 years.

Okay, you know what would actually raise a lot more revenue in 10 years? reversing the tax cuts for corporations that were implemented in 2017 under the Trump administration. Those tax cuts for the rich cost the federal government nearly $2 trillion in revenue. Let me say that again. That tax cut for the rich bill that was passed under the Trump administration has robbed the American people of $2 trillion in revenue. because these corporations got a massive tax cut. Their tax rate went from 35% to 21%. 35% to 21%.

And now we're having a conversation about like, well, you know, because of like the corporate tax loopholes that are still in place, you know, all those corporate deductions that these companies can take, because of the incredibly low corporate tax rate, they're paying nothing. They're getting tax refunds in some cases. So why don't we just do a minimum tax of 7%. No, 7% is not good, not good. Why are we adding more to the tax code with this proposal, if it miraculously passes, by the way,

when in reality, we could do something as simple as, I don't know, follow through with what Biden promised he would do when he was campaigning for president, which was reverse the tax cuts for the rich and for corporations. Now, he hasn't done that. In fact, one of the first things that Biden did when he got elected was put out his infrastructure proposal, which proposed to increase corporate taxes from the current 21% to only 28%. Why didn't he want to go back to 35%? That's what he promised when he was campaigning. So Biden certainly doesn't get any cookies, that's for sure. But Senator Warren, come on, I love it.

I mean, I love the way that she debates these corporate goons during Senate hearings. I love some of her policy proposals. I think she does good work. However, this is weak sauce. Not good enough. Not good enough. The fact that Trump's tax cuts for the rich remain in place is shame. And to not reverse that and instead propose a minimum tax of 7%, I just think doesn't go far enough, not nearly far enough.

So let's talk a little bit about CEO pay and how much these corporations have gotten away with essentially paying nothing in taxes. So CEO pay in the United States rose by a staggering 1,322% between 1978 and 2020. A sharp contrast to the pay increase of the typical worker, which was just 18% during that same period. So these companies increase profits. They don't invest in paying their workers more. Of course not, because they're looking out for their shareholders. So then they turn around and they increase the pay for their executives, for their CEOs. They give a nice return to their shareholders, and they also get to enjoy these massive tax cuts.

Why? In 2020, a year of pandemic and widespread economic dislocation, the top executives at the largest public firms in the United States were paid 351 times as much as the typical worker, with CEO pay measured by salary, bonuses, long-term incentive payouts, and exercise stock options. CEO to worker pay ratio was 61 to 1 in 1989. Oh, that's fascinating. So it gives you a sense of just how bad the situation has gotten, just how much inequality has grown since the 1970s.

And so obviously, they can afford to pay more in taxes, no? I mean, if CEOs can see their income rise by a staggering 1,320,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 22% since 1978, maybe some of that money could be used on taxes. Maybe they should pay their fair share. I'm not talking about 7%. I'm not talking about a measly 7% minimum tax. I mean, this bill is essentially proposing that corporations get taxed for not paying their taxes. How about they just pay their taxes?

How about that? Let me give you more. A corporation can reduce its taxable income by deducting. come by deducting insurance premiums, travel expenses, bad debts. Wait, let's stop right there. Oh, oh, they can deduct bad debts, so they owe less in taxes? Cool, can we do that? How many of us get to deduct our credit card debt? None of us, none of us. That's not a thing. So why do they get to deduct their bad debt? These are what we're talking about when we talk about corporate tax loopholes. Let's continue. They can also deduct interest payments,

sales taxes, sales taxes, fuel taxes, and excise taxes. Tax preparation fees, legal services, bookkeeping, and advertising costs can also be used to reduce business income. How about we close some of those loopholes? How about that? That'd be fun. I think that's far better solution than allowing for these companies to get away with paying a minimum 7% tax. Again, 7% is not enough. It's better than the situation we find ourselves in because, again, there are several major corporations that bring in millions of dollars every year in profit. The new BMO, V.I. Porter MasterCard is your ticket to more, more perks, more points,

more flights more of all the things you want in a travel rewards card and then some get your ticket to more with the new bemo V-I-Porter Mastercard and get up to $2,400 in value in your first 13 months

terms and conditions apply visit BMO.com slash V-I-Porter to learn more not paying anything in federal taxes but it's still not good enough in fact 55 corporations paid nothing in federal taxes in 2020, they would have paid a collective total of 8.5 billion in 2020

had they paid that rate on their 2020 income. Instead, they received $3.5 billion in tax rebates, meaning tax refunds. They're supposed to pay $8.5 billion in taxes in 2020. Instead, they get a $3.5 billion refund. Refund. I mean, it's infuriating. Tax breaks for renewable energy are part of the tax avoidance scheme for several companies, including all of these fossil fuel companies, Duke Energy, DTE, Excel Energy? Why are they getting tax credits for renewable energy? Is that being investigated? I mean, the IRS is certainly underfunded on purpose, so they don't do the necessary audits on the wealthiest tax dodgers. But it's fascinating to see.

see fossil fuel companies take advantage of tax credits for renewable energy. A provision in the tax cuts and jobs act, that's the tax cut law that was passed under the Trump administration, allowing companies to immediately write off capital investments. The most extreme version, the most extreme version of accelerated depreciation helped several companies reduce their income tax substantially. Consolidated Edison, William's PPL and sealed air all used depreciation tax breaks to substantially reduce current income tax expenses, as did at least a dozen other companies. Look, I'm giving you this dense sounding content right now, because the point here is, you have corporate tax loopholes,

you have a severely lowered corporate tax rate because of what Trump did in his administration. And the response from Democrats like Senator Elizabeth Warren is we should just implement a minimum tax of 7%. No, no, no cookies, that's not good enough. That's my point. So again, this is not a personal attack on anyone, but it is an attack on weak-sauced proposals that A are unlikely to go anywhere. But B, are not even likely to provide a band-aid to the gushing wound that we're experiencing in America. right now with increasing inequality and with a system that continues to reward bad behavior at the very top while punishing workers and the poor.

So we can't just say, look, it's something, it's better than nothing, it's better than what Republicans are doing, that's a super low bar. We deserve more. We in the very least deserve what Biden campaigned on, which was to reserve, or reverse, I should say, those tax cuts for the rich. All right, we got to go to break. When we come back, we'll talk about the defund the police moment on the Senate floor yesterday. You don't want to miss it.

Come right back. Welcome back to TYT. Just want to thank Elder MindPulse in our Twitch community because 50 subs. That's amazing. that's fire. I love it. Thank you so much for supporting us and for being such a wonderful part of our Twitch community. For those of you who are like Twitch community, what's that? You can check that out at twitch.tv slash t-y-t. All right, moving on to our next story. While the Senate is debating the budget resolution bill, all of a sudden you hear a Republican

lawmaker, Tommy Tuberville, go up on the Senate floor and say something that Corey Booker was in favor of. Corrie Booker considered it a gift. Well, what did Tommy Tuberville propose? Let's watch. I call on my colleagues to support our law enforcement by voting yes for this amendment. Opposing my amendment is a vote in support of defunding the police and against the men and women in blue. Now, these proposals, these amendments to the budget resolution are non-buy. So this is mostly a symbolic waste of time action taken by the Senate. It's theater. It's meant to provide content for future political ads.

That's all that, that's all this is. So it's a symbolic vote. That's an important thing to keep in mind. It's non-binding. And my guess is that Senator Tupperville was under the impression that Democrats would vote against his proposal, his amendment, right? And his amendment, of course, proposes to punish cities that defund the police. But then immediately after he gives that speech, Senator Cory Booker takes the floor and here's his reaction.

Madam President, I'm from New Jersey. I am so excited. This is perhaps the highlight of this long and painful and torturous night. This is a gift. If it wasn't complete abdication of Senate procedures and esteem, I would walk over there and hug my colleague from Alabama. And I will tell you right now, thank God, because there's some people who have said that they're members of this deliberative body that wanted to fund the police to my horror. And now this senator has given us the gift that finally once and for all we can put to bed this scurrilous accusation that somebody in this great esteemed body would want to defund the police. So let all of us, a hundred people, not walk but sashay down there and vote for this amendment and put to rest the lies. And I am sure I will see no political ads attacking anybody here over to fund the police.

And I would ask unanimous consent to add something else to this obvious bill. Can we add also that every senator here wants to defund the police believes in God, country and apple pie? What was that? Well, the amendment proposed by Tommy Tuberville did pass with 99 senators voting in favor of it. Every single Democratic lawmaker voted in favor of this non-binding amendment, which claims to want to punish cities that defund the police. Now, why? Why would Democrats vote in favor of that? Aren't Democrats in favor of defunding the police? Well, here's the thing. While Cory Booker has been part of a proposal to reform policing in America, I haven't found any evidence that he's ever said that he agrees with defunding the police. So I want to, and I wanted to find that video. I'm like, there's got to be something out there

where he's supportive of that measure. There might be, I haven't found it. However, What the Republicans were trying to do here was they were attempting to get Democratic senators to vote against the amendment so they can later turn around and campaign against these Democrats by claiming they're supportive of defunding the police. Now, if you look at polling, it indicates that the majority of Americans do not want to defund the police. And then you couple that with the rising crime rates across the country. And you kind of see a better picture of why Cory Booker reacted the way that he did and why Democratic lawmakers in the Senate voted the way that they did for this non-binding amendment. So I want to give you some of that polling right now. Only 18% of respondents in a recent USA Today Ipsos poll supported the movement known as defund the police and 58% said that they actually opposed it.

Though white Americans, 67%, and Republicans, 84%, were much more likely to oppose the movement, only 28% of black Americans and 34% of Democrats were in favor of it. So according to this USA Today Ipsos poll, only 28% of black Americans are in favor of defunding the police. Let me give you more. The responses were even more negative with Americans, when Americans, I should say, were asked if they thought the police should be abolished or eliminated, with 67% overall saying that they were opposed, including a majority of black Americans and Democrats. And the numbers changed a little bit when the question was framed not as defunding the police, but redirecting police funding to other social services. Respondents were less opposed to the idea. of redirecting police funds to social services, though a 57% majority was still against the idea. 43% of Americans supported the idea. So there are two things happening right now. Number one, I think the Democrats are paying attention to the polling.

I think they're paying attention to the rising crime rates. And that partially at least motivated their decision to vote along with Republicans in the Senate on this not. binding amendment. But I also don't want to give Democrats too much credit, because the fact of the matter is they do seem to make decisions based on fear. And their fear here was that they were gonna get attacked by GOP lawmakers who are gonna attack them anyway, regardless of how they voted on this non-binding amendment. They're going to blame rising crime rates on Democrats anyway.

They're gonna claim that Democratic lawmakers wanna defund the police anyway. So my advice to Democratic lawmakers would be don't lead from a place of fear, lead from a place of strength. In this case, it seems like they're paying attention to polling and they're doing what they think their own constituents would be in favor of. But when it comes to most of their actions, certainly in the last several years, they're so afraid of what Republicans are going to say about them, what conservative media is going to say about them, oh, they're gonna call a social, I got news for you, they called Joe Biden.

Joe Biden, the guy who successfully passed the bankruptcy bill as a senator, they call him a socialist. They're gonna call Democrats any name they can imagine. If Democrats are gonna be concerned about that and they're gonna base their leadership on how fearful they are of criticism from Republicans, they're gonna suffer. So in this case, again, I, regardless of how you feel about defunding the police, you look at how the majority of people in the country feel about it, and I think Democrats are just listening to that. But it is also kind of interesting that Cory Booker, who did in fact propose police reform, hasn't really done much to push for it. Here is a tweet from July of 2020, where he said, we must not allow a movement of this magnitude to lose momentum. Remember, this is when there were mass protests across the country with Black Lives Matter.

As the news coverage shifts away from our fight to end systemic racism, black lives still matter, and real change is still needed. We can start by passing the Justice in Policing Act. Yeah, you can start with that. The question is, when, when are you going to start with that? Because proposing something and then tweeting about it and then forgetting about it is not fighting for police reform. So I do think police reform is definitely necessary. I think defund the police has become a phrase that Americans are against. But this isn't even about defunding the police at this point.

It's about reforming police and that hasn't even started to happen. There hasn't really been much of a fight in Congress in in this regard. And so I think there's plenty of blame to be directed at at Democrats in dropping the ball on that issue. But do I blame them for voting the way they did on a non-binding amendment that Republicans were going to use for their campaign purposes? Not really, just keeping it real. All right, we got one more story for you before we end the first hour. So let's talk about these anti-maskers. Anti-maskers surrounded health experts during a school board meeting in Tennessee.

This is during a Williamson County School Board meeting, and they voted to require masks in elementary schools. So let's take a quick look at this video with sound, so you get a sense of just how threatening these individuals were toward the health experts who are at this meeting. No, man, fly. No more masks. No more. No more.

We know who you are. We know who you are. Keep it calm. No more man. We're on these guys side. No, they're not. No, they're not on our side. The police are on our side.

The police are on our side. Calm down. We know who you are. We know who you are. We know who you are. You can leave free of you are. But we will find you. You will never be allowed in public again.

You will never be allowed. You'll never let it be allowed in public again. I know who you are. Let them out. Let them out. Whoa. Whoa. You better watch you out.

You better watch you. Keep it calm. So those were pretty clear threats toward a medical expert, health expert, who attended the meeting to provide advice on how the school district should proceed with elementary schools. Now, elementary school students are not getting vaccinated right now. The vaccine has not been approved for children that young. So kids aren't getting vaccinated and in an attempt to protect them from the Delta variant and variants that are likely to come after the Delta variant, school district decided,

you know what, maybe we need to do a mask mandate for elementary school students. In middle schools and high schools, it's optional. But this is specifically about elementary schools, and it's specifically meant to protect kids and the adults that they live with from getting very sick, potentially dying from coronavirus. So the decision came after an emotionally charged four-hour meeting with frequent disruptions by crowd members opposed to mask requirements and tensions running high among all. A majority of people who attended the meeting were maskless and interjected with personal comments dozens of times throughout the meeting.

Only one person was escorted out by Williamson County deputies, but dozens of anti-masking parents followed in support. I mean, good, be gone, but anyway. But there is some positive news because one of the administrators, one of the officials for the school district, disclosed some of the email that she's been receiving in regard to this issue. So her name is Nancy Garrett, she is the school board chair, and she received 781 emails from people requesting mask requirements.

and 348 emails from people who didn't want the mandate. So look, oftentimes the squeaky wheel gets the attention. And in this case, it appears that the anti-maskers who decided to show up to the school board meeting and then threaten health experts are the squeaky wheel. Seems like most of the parents, at least most of the parents who have written in to the school board chair, do in fact want mask mandates to keep their children and themselves safe from this virus. Now, are kids getting super sick from coronavirus from this Delta variant? Turns out, yes, there are cases of children who end up getting hospitalized after they contract this virus. Since the school, since school began on Friday, 25 elementary students had tested positive for COVID-19. Hasn't even been a week yet. And already we have cases, dozens of cases of students testing positive for COVID-19. And I believe we have one more video that shows you how rapidly kids are getting sick as

they show up for school, unmasked, and unfortunately are exposed to the virus. Let's watch. So soon after school started back up again, Washington County yesterday reported 50 positive cases among students and staff and 194 students and staff currently in quarantine. even a jump show from the day before when they had 41 positive cases and 169 quarantining. So those numbers are ticking up. And in this region of the Appalachian Highlands, the hospital system here, Ballot Health, told me that yesterday of their positive cases that they saw in their service area, 29% of them were those under the age of 18. I know. People under the age of 18 are now getting sick. Some of them are getting hospitalized.

We know that we still have issues with so-called vaccine hesitancy in many of these red states. So your child will go to school, possibly contract the virus, bring it home. It's a virus. It's contagious. I get it. Wearing the masks sucks. I hate wearing the masks. I can't stand. just keeping it real. But I also don't like being sick. I don't like spreading a virus to innocent people who might suffer significantly from it, who might get hospitalized from it, who might end up dead as a result. I see it as my duty as an American, as a human, as someone who cares about people around me to just wear the mask and be done with it. The fact that this has

become such a difficult issue is exhausting, and it's incredibly insulting to the health care professionals, to the frontline workers in these hospitals who haven't even gotten a break in the last 18 months, who risk their own lives to take care of people who are hospitalized with a virus that could have been prevented if they just wore a damn mask or if they just got vaccinated. My heart goes out to them because the first few weeks of this pandemic, you got people in New York City clapping for healthcare workers, for frontline hospital workers as they're going to work. You have people paying lip service, pretending like they care about these individuals. But our actions certainly don't show it.

Because if we actually value these people who again put their lives on the line every day to make sure everyone else gets better, we wouldn't make something as simple as wearing a damn mask, a huge issue. But we live in America. Hyper individualism, who cares about everyone else? We can't do something in a collectivist way if our lives depended on it, literally. And it's embarrassing and shameful, especially on a global stage. All right, that does it for hour one. When we come back, John Iderola will join me to talk about a fake cop overdose and more. Stay tuned. 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.co slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.