The Young Turks - Crime & Punishment

Episode Date: March 2, 2023

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot loses bid for second term. A Federalist Society veteran is heading up a multimillion-dollar effort to push anti-ESG messaging and legislation. “Grassroots” parents’ rights group gets big mystery money. Report shows insurance companies profiting massively from Medicare privatization. Bernie says he will subpoena Howard Schultz. Host: Ana Kasparian 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. Stop. Do you know how fast you were going? I'm going to have to write you a ticket to my new movie, The Naked Gun. Liam Neeson. Buy your tickets now.

I get a free Tilly Dog. Chilly Dog, not included. The Naked God. Tickets on sale now. August 1st. Why just survive back to school when you can thrive by creating. a space that does it all for you, no matter the size. Whether you're taking over your parents' basement or moving to campus, IKEA has hundreds of design ideas and affordable options to complement any budget. After all, you're in your small space era. It's time to own it. Shop now at IKEA.ca. What's up to TYT, I'm your host, Anna Kasparean. I'm not going to lie, we have a super dense first hour for you. But it's news you can use.

Okay, it's news that's super important in understanding what's happening around the world, around your world, and why your life is the way it is. These are stories that typically don't get much coverage, but we are going to, of course, discuss the update on the election results in the mayoral race in Chicago. But after that, we're going to talk about the latest rallying cry among conservatives. If you've heard them rail against something known as ESG investment or investing, there's a reason for it and there is a well funded, orchestrated effort to essentially root out any possibility of companies changing their behavior or practices in a way that's more socially conscious. So we'll get to that. Later, we'll also discuss basically where all of these right wing

takeovers of various school boards came from. That's also a well funded, well orchestrated effort by the right wing. And a lot of similar themes here with the same billionaires funding these efforts. So stick around for that. In the second hour, John Iderolo, of course will be joining me. I'm really, really looking forward to that because we are going to discuss how Bernie Sanders is planning on holding Starbucks executives accountable for their union busting efforts. And we'll also break down how some Republican lawmakers, prominent Republican lawmakers, are now publicly and unironically calling for their own safe spaces. One of my favorite stories in the show. So don't miss that. That's in the second hour. For now, though, just

want to encourage you to like and share the stream if you're watching us live and become a member by going to tyt.com slash join or you can click on the join button if you're watching us on YouTube. Members happen to be the people who keep us independent, fierce in our honesty, and basically tethered to the truth as opposed to corporate interests. So thank you to our members. I really appreciate you. And thank you for allowing me to do what I do and what I'd love to do. Now with that said, let's take a little trip to Chicago. Big news there. We were fierce competitors in these last few months, but I will be rooting and praying for our next mayor to deliver for the people of the city for years to come. I'm grateful that we work together to remove a record number of guns off our streets, reduced homicides, and started making real progress on public safety.

Lori Lightfoot, the incumbent mayor of Chicago, has lost her bid for reelection after serving only one term. Two of her opponents will now face off in a runoff election on April 4th. Lightfoot happens to be the first incumbent in decades, 40 years in fact, to be ousted after just one term. In fact, the last time a first term mayor lost a re-election bid was in 1983. Jane Byrne was her name. And there's a lot of reasons that we can turn to to kind of understand why Lori Lightfoot was only able to serve one term. Before we get to that, though, just a photo of her carrying a pack of medello after losing the election. And you know what, if I were in her shoes, I would probably feel the same way.

And there's a lot I disagree with her on, to be honest with you, but her choice of Modello is not one of my disagreements with her. I definitely have a couple bottles of Modelo in my fridge right now. Now, let's move on to the actual substance of this story, because there's a lot to get to. Now, when reporters asked her why she thinks she lost her reelection bid, I think that her answer is one example of the failure I'm seeing among Democrats, just across the board, the country, okay? So she said, I'm a black woman in America, of course. In fact, even before she lost the election, when she was previously interviewed by the New Yorker, she said something similar, quote, I'm a black woman, let's not forget certain folks, frankly, don't support us in leadership roles. So there is definitely misogyny, racism, all of

these issues in the country. I do not want to minimize that. However, the inability to take personal responsibility for her failures and instead looking outward to blame others as the scapegoats is pretty ridiculous because there were some major failures. And what she really failed to do was have a clear message on what her plans were in regard to crime in Chicago, which was the number one topic when it came to this election. I'm not saying it, the voters in Chicago said it. And what she initially said was that she was against the defund the police movement. And then in 2020, she proposed to decrease the police budget by $80 million.

But then she turned around and actually significantly increased the police budget by 17%. The police budget in 2023 in Chicago, I had to double check this. I couldn't believe the number. It's $1.94 billion in 2023. one city, one city. So the message was muddled. Anyone who tries to say that she was punished for pushing for progressive criminal justice reforms is lying to you. She did not push for progressive criminal justice reforms. However, crime was sky high in Chicago, and again, she lacked clarity on what to do about it. Now, Paul Valles, I should say, former chief executive

of Chicago public schools, and Brandon Johnson, a Cook County Commissioner, will face off in an April 4th election to be the next mayor of Chicago. With nearly all the votes counted, Vallis led the pack with 34% of the vote, followed by Johnson with 20% and Lightfoot trailing with 16%. So as you can tell, the police union backed candidate here, that's Valas, is the one who has a much larger lead over Johnson, who is identified as the more progressive candidate in this runoff election, again, that's supposed to take place on April 4th. Now what's interesting is during the election, for the most part, Laurie Lightfoot kind of ignored Johnson, didn't really see him as much of a threat.

But in the last few weeks, she noticed that he was experiencing an increase in the polling, and she started attacking him for being pro defund the police. It was fascinating to see that Johnson as the progressive candidate tried to hide the fact that he was supportive of defund the police in 2020. He tried to kind of scrap that from his history, which I don't know is, I don't know if that's going to bode well for him. But the outcome of the election, the two candidates who will go to this runoff race, it's really important to understand it.

They both ran on criminal justice related issues, right? So you have the, you have Paul Vallis who basically wants tough on crime policies. And then you have Johnson, who is more of a progressive who focuses on doing something about the root causes of crime, right? The economic and social issues that lead to an uptick in crime. He wants to root that out or deal with those root causes. So really what you see are two candidates who are addressing the same issue, but from two different perspectives, whereas Lori Lightfoot was all over the place and clearly people weren't

happy with her. There's also commentary about how she was too combative or mercurial. I don't know about all of that. What I do know is when your constituents are concerned about something, and in this case it's crime, you've got to take it seriously and you've got to make it clear that you have a game plan in tackling it effectively. Now with that said, I do want to stop putting words in the mouths of people living in Chicago and have you hear from them yourselves. So why don't we take a look at the first video and you'll kind of get a sense of where people are standing on the issue of crime. Public safety is a number one issue and if we could address public safety, then we could address crime. For me, crime affects everything.

It's the only issue that matters in this election. My brother was shot entering my freshman year of high school. Her father, brother and uncle have all been shot. One she said was mistaken identity. Another, a case of wrong place, wrong time. Many of those she grew up with have also been victims of gun violence. I can count on more than both of my hands, how many classmates have died because it's more than seeing it. I literally dropped to the ground. I was laying on the sidewalk thinking I don't want to be the next person on the news that's killed by a stray bullet. Hogan is an attorney who lived in a north side neighborhood for nearly two decades and saw it change.

After a family member was shot during a botched carjacking, Hogan and her two chocolate labs packed up and moved to a sleek neighborhood in the center of the city. And what's interesting is the two women that you heard from in that video are wanting to tackle crime from different perspectives. Okay, so one of them does not think that funding the police more, giving the police more power is going to really do anything to tackle the crime wave. The other woman, the one who actually moved with her labs, she said, well, police have low morale. We need to support them. We need to encourage them to do their jobs, not come down hard on them. So again, it's interesting because everyone seems to be concerned about the same thing. But based on what you hear from the electorate there, from the

voters there, there are differences in how they want to tackle the issue. And the two remaining candidates who will face off in that runoff election represent the two different sides in regard to how to tackle crime. So really those two possibilities in tackling crime are on the ballot on April 4th. So with that said, I want a few more comments. I want to read a few more comments from people in Chicago, including Pilar, a 35 year old who says that she's voting in a mayoral election for the first time since moving to the city four years ago. She said she's been frustrated by crime in her neighborhood, noting that she's witnessed two carjackings that took place in broad daylight. I can tell you that I've experienced that as well in

Los Angeles, and it's beyond shocking. With shootings up in many Chicago neighborhoods, Valis has capitalized on voters' feelings that Lightfoot's tenure has not made them safer. He has, by the way, he's also the only white person in the race. He's backed by the police union, fraternal order of police, he has appealed to voters with a message largely centered on public safety and a plan to deploy hundreds more officers on Chicago streets. So look, Lori Lightfoot during this election while campaigning, bragged about adding more cops to the police force, adding more funding to the police force. And that didn't do anything in lowering the crime rate.

And it didn't do anything in changing the perception of rising crime. among the voters. And I think part of the problem is the debate seems to center on whether or not you're funding the cops. And the real question should be what, like, what are the strings attached? How is the money being allocated and for what programs? Is it for better training? I mean, just throwing money at the cops doesn't mean that you're going to solve crime. How are those resources is being used by the police department, what is being done in addition to bulking up the police force, I guess? You know, like those are the questions that I feel like don't get answered and it's an issue.

And by the way, for the progressives who say we need to address root causes, great, what do you mean by that, be specific, what specific policies are you pushing for that specifically deal with the root causes? Far too often I hear, we need to deal with the root causes, mental health, and okay, great, How are you gonna do it? Because simply saying it as a talking point isn't enough. We need to know exactly what you plan to do, what is the policy, give us some details on that. Now let's see how the two runoff candidates campaigned on the topic of crime.

Okay, let's take a look at this next video. Every one of Lightfoot's challengers has pledged to replace the police superintendent she appointed. Teacher turned Cook County Commissioner Brandon Johnson. Well, what's up Chicago? Says he'd reallocate funds in the police department and focus on the root causes of crime by investing in schools and housing. Over 40% of the violence that happens in the city of Chicago happens in 6% of the neighborhoods. Where I live. Let's get Chicago background.

Congressman Hesuzzi Garcia says he'd increased states. as he'd increased staffing and improved data collection. People need to feel safe to do business. And current frontrunner, Paul Valles, the former CEO of Chicago's schools, promises to hire 1,800 new officers with a focus on community policing. Community policing is critical because, you know, you can't have half of the high priority 911 calls not being responded to. So again, you can clearly see the differences there in the approach or response to the crime way.

And want to know what kind of messaging did not resonate with voters in Chicago? How reporters handle the crime wave, which also drove me crazy when it came to local reporting in Los Angeles about the crime wave. So I'm going to give you an example, because what you're about to hear is very similar to what voters were told in Los Angeles, in San Francisco, in some of these other big cities that were clearly experiencing a crime wave. Let's watch. Heather Sharon is a reporter for WTTW, Chicago's PBS station.

She says sentiments about crime in the city are as much about perception as reality. We are seeing crimes and high-profile crimes in neighborhoods that are not used to being in the headlines for those reasons. And that, I think, can add to sort of people sense that, well, I used to feel safe here, but I don't feel safe anymore. And that is really, in many ways, disconnected from what the reality of crime is. What? Okay, so just, just think about what she just said and how it makes no sense. People are experiencing these high profile crimes in neighborhoods where crimes didn't happen before. But you know, it's really disconnected from reality.

What? What are you talking about? Clearly there is a, you know what? Ignore me. Let's go to the facts. Fiked in Chicago during the pandemic, more than 800 people were murdered in 20,000 2021 alone. While the number of homicides dropped last year, reports of violent crimes continue to rise, up 12% since 2019, the year of the last citywide election. A recent poll found that nearly

two-thirds of Chicago residents say they feel unsafe from gun violence and crime. Whoa, they feel unsafe from gun violence and crime as gun violence and crime is happening in their communities. but just talk to a reporter who will tell you that you're just imagining it. It's all in your head. It's totally imaginary. I mean, I don't understand how these people say these things with a straight face. Are they brain dead or are they just intentionally lying to you to confuse you? I don't get it.

But let me just say, ignoring the crime wave or pretending like it's not happening doesn't make the situation better for anyone, including the voters or your preferred candidate who might be the incumbent and might have a personal interest in minimizing or downplaying the crime wave. I just can't, I can't stand it. But that's how the media handles it. You know the two different approaches in responding to the crime wave. I think the tough on crime policies have been disastrous in this country. Mass incarceration has been disastrous in this country, which is why I have been yelling about this issue because I want progressives to get real about how we're or respond to it. Otherwise, we're going to have a police union-backed candidate winning

in Chicago, winning in other parts of the country. Like, I don't know, New York City. Another example, Eric Adams, former cop is now the mayor of New York City. I wonder why. Listen, people want to feel safe. They also want to ensure that we have a fair and just criminal justice system. But if you don't have progressives providing real, substantive, robust responses to the crime wave, well, then people are going to do whatever it takes to stay safe, including voting for a candidate that they otherwise wouldn't have voted for. That's what I'm trying to get people to understand. Now with that said, let's take a look at a few other things that are going on when it comes

to Lori Lightfoot. Apparently, she was not well liked among some Democrats as well by. the way, including the governor of Illinois. She apparently had a very negative relationship with him. In fact, Ken Snyder, who's the co-founder of a consulting firm, Democratic consulting firm says, one of these things has to be true, that things are really going in the right direction in your city or you have to be incredibly likable. And she has a problem with both. In fact, one of the things that she was really aggressive on was cracking down on young people getting together and having parties during the coronavirus pandemic, she gave a speech

and like threatened to throw them all in jail. So she was able to elevate herself by being different. Now she's part of the establishment, but she also ran on being a change agent and then didn't live up to a lot of issues that progressives were really counting. on. That's another political strategist named Del Marie Cobb. So she really didn't make anyone happy. She didn't make the people who want the tough on crime stuff happy. She didn't make progressives happy. She certainly didn't champion any real progressive policy in Chicago, that's for sure. And at the end of the day, when the results come in and she loses her

reelection race, she just blames it on identity, much like Hillary Clinton did to be quite honest with you, without really looking inward, doing the self-assessment, doing an audit of her four years as mayor of Chicago to try to figure out where she could have improved, where she missed the mark. Personal responsibility is really, really important if you want to be a public servant and a leader. And look, this is a comment about most politicians these days. They don't have any interest in looking inward. They have no interest in representing the best, you know, the best causes for their constituents. And sometimes the chickens come home to roost and you lose the election.

That's what happened to her. And if she wants a future in politics, she's got to change her approach and actually take a look at what her voters wanted and what her voters were concerned about. Now, with that said, we'll see how it plays out. Obviously, we'll fill you guys in after we know the results on April 4th. But you have two very different candidates. You have Johnson, again, who's really positioned himself as the progressive. And then you have Volus, who's running on this tough on crime platform.

I'm a little concerned considering how big his lead is at the moment. But Lori Lightfoot's supporters are maybe likely to go with Johnson. We'll see how it plays out. But we'll fill you in as we learn more. For now, though, we're going to take a quick break. We'll be right back. Welcome back to the show, everyone. Just want to give a special shout out to DJ Bart because he is hitting it out of

the park today. Okay, he was playing some disco music earlier. I don't know if you guys heard that. It was before the show story. Thank you very much. Very good Bart, thank you. All right, and thank you to No Sleep, who's been a member on YouTube for 10 months. Hey Anna, lifelong Chicago in here.

Thank you for your spot on analysis on the mayoral race. Hope the left vote coalesces behind Johnson. Thank you for that comment and giving me a little bit of validation on how I covered it. I tried to be as comprehensive as I could. Well, let's move on to the financial industry and what they're engaging in because conservatives have a new rallying cry and I want you to be able to recognize it as it unfolds. Conservative activists are engaging in a multi-million dollar fight against environmental, social, and corporate governance investing, also known as ESG investing.

I'm sure some of you have heard a little about it from conservatives in recent weeks. Well, considering this is a multi-million dollar effort to squash this type of investing vehicle, I guarantee you're gonna hear a lot more about it. it. Now, in order to really understand the motivating factors behind this right-wing effort, we should have a better understanding of what ESG investing is. Take a look. The way we think about it at Bank of America is it basically boils down to environmental, social, and governance considerations that are part of the panoply of considerations that we as investors consider when buying and selling securities.

ESG at the level of corporates essentially reflects companies' attempts to integrate environmental and social issues into the way they do business, into their business model, and into their strategy. So a quick recap, E stands for environmental, S stands for social, G stands for governance. ESG investing means taking into consideration how a company's environmental, social, and governance performance will affect a company's financial performance, and in turn use that to determine investing, in the company. So just to kind of break it down further, it's a way for investors, whether it's institutional investors like Bank of America, for instance, or retail investors, ordinary people like us, to understand whether a company lives up to the investors' personal

values. So if you are John Iderola, for instance, and you're looking for mutual funds that only invest in companies that are environmentally conscious, that you would be able to find that thanks to this ESG themed investing vehicle, right? So there would be a mutual fund or there might be individual stocks that you can invest in. And these companies are supposed to, you know, have some mission, whether it's to fight climate change or in some instances They celebrate diversity on their board of investors, whatever it is, right? Something having to do with the social change that progressives would like to see in the country. Now, what's really interesting about this.

What really stands out is how much interest there is in these investment vehicles? Because I'm going to be honest with you. I'm too cynical and I just thought, no, people who are investing their money, they just want to invest in companies where they'll get the highest retirement. They don't care about anything else. It's all about the highest possible returns, right? No, wrong. Watch. According to a Morning Star Direct report, a record 45.6 billion went into the global

sustainable fund universe in the first quarter of 2020. Interest in sustainable investing jumped to 85% in 2019, up from 71% in 2015. Bank of America predicts the money in ESG investing. could rise to between 15 and 20 trillion dollars because of changing demographics. Oil companies do not like that. They do not like that. Now look, what they're mostly concerned about, and when I say mostly oil companies and conservatives, is that some of these companies won't qualify for investments from major banks or other institutions. So if, let's say, Bank of America is looking at a potential investment into a company that doesn't care at all about diversity

at the workplace or doesn't care at all about sustainable practices, they might decide, I'm not going to invest in that company. And that is what oil companies and honestly, corporations like the oil companies that we talk about so often on the show are concerned about. And so lately, you hear this Republican-led effort to refer to it as woke capitalism, essentially try to do away with these investment vehicles. For instance, the Republican House of Representatives plans hearings to highlight what the conservative groups and some GOP members view as the politicization, I can never say that word, right, basically politicizing the investments, right? They see it as a big problem. Potential GOP presidential candidates, including

former Vice President Mike Pence and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, are talking about how Democrats have forced their agenda on companies through ESG requirements. And by the way, no one's required to do anything, right? So if a company decides they're going to to engage in ESG practices because it might be beneficial for their bottom line, then they're able to volunteer to do that. But no government officials putting a gun to anyone's head and forcing these companies to do a damn thing. We live in the United States of America, where regulation is hard to come by. So if anyone thinks that this is by force, it's laughable to say the least. But also, investors get to invest their money

wherever the hell they damn well please. So I would turn around and say the Conservatives freaking out about this, you don't get to put a gun to the heads of ordinary Americans or retail investors for that matter and tell them where they can and cannot invest their money. That's ridiculous. So let's give you some more details on who's funding this effort to squash ESG investing. A conservative nonprofit call Marble Freedom Trust and its consulting firm CRC advisors are leading the anti-ESG push and have spent more than $10 million on the effort so far, mostly through the group's consumers research, people familiar with the spending said.

The trust is overseen by Leonard Leo, a longtime leader at the Federalist Society, a network of lawyers that grooms conservative scholars, officials, and judges. In fact, the conservative Supreme Court justices that are currently, you know, reversing rights that were granted to us by the same court decades ago, they're the ones who were tapped by the Federalist Society to become Supreme Court justices. And lo and behold, there they are, sitting in the halls of power, able to make decisions about our lives, decisions that will affect the rest of our lives. And look, first and foremost, it's important to remember that the reason the Federalist

society loves those conservative Supreme Court justices is because of their pro-corporate stances. Yeah, they're socially conservative as well, and we have to bear the consequences of that, and we already have. But their number one selling point for the Federalist Society is how they are fierce in wanting to protect corporate interests. Now, the ESG movement is polluting our culture and assaulting the dignity and worth of people. Our enterprise stands with a growing group of Americans who are fighting to crush leftist dominance in this arena, said Leonard Leo, who again is the head of the Federalist Society. And let's learn a little bit more about Marble Freedom Trust. It was formed in 2020, and it has received a whopping 1.6 billion

dollars in funding from Chicago billionaire and former manufacturer Bear's Seed. Since then, it has distributed money to groups fighting some of the top conservative causes, including pushing back on ESG. So look, this is really about ensuring that corporations don't have to abide by any ethical standards, don't have to abide by any type of guideline having to do with the destruction of our environment and how they can basically scale. back in emitting the pollutants that lead to the climate change emergency that we're dealing with, they don't want to deal with any of that, right?

They want to be untethered to any type of societal enforcement of their business practices. You get what I'm saying? Because again, this is not about regulation, there's no regulation here. This is just about corporations wanting to do away with options for investors. who want to invest their money in companies that, you know, actually give a damn about ordinary people or give a damn about the environment. I do want to give you some hilarious examples of what Marble Freedom Trust and their funders have been up to. Okay, so there are more people involved in this effort, and you're going to hear a lot of the same names over and over again. Some of the major voices in this debate, including Consumers Research, the Heritage Foundation, the State Financial Officers Foundation, and the American Accountability Foundation all received grants from entities related to Marble Freedom Trust, according to tax filings.

So what have they done so far? They have distributed model legislation in state capitals to push back on ESG, right? So when I say model legislation, it's to essentially ensure that there are laws against ESG investing, okay, that's what they're fighting for. They're providing talking points to lawmakers, and you could already see it with what the right wing lawmakers are regurgitating. They're funding attack ads against companies that support ESG. In fact, there is one digital ad by the Heritage Foundation that I want to show you because of how insane and absurd it is.

Let's watch. What's your business? Operate drilling equipment, all engaged. The E and ESG is for environmental. You're in a dirty industry. So I can't get no loan? Well, let's take a look at your company's social policies. Tell me about your plan to create social justice.

Social justice. Do your employees get paid time off for abortions? And tell me about your diversity, equity, and inclusion plan. Well, I ain't got none of that. I'm a driller. I just hire good people to do work. Well, maybe there's one more thing we can check. Do you have any female co-owners?

No, just me. Have you ever identified as a woman? Or even just non-binary. It could really help your score. What? Your loan is denied. So just like a laughable scenario of a driller, an oil driller getting denied alone because he doesn't identify as transgender or whatever.

It's just, it's so ridiculous. And again, at the end of the day, what this is really about is taking options away from investors, which by the way, there, you know, I know there's a little bit of a debate about, you know, whether or not you should invest your money at all if you're on the left, which I think is crazy because we live in the system we live in. And if you want to retire one day, you are going to have to save your money and you can't just let it sit in a savings account where it actually loses its value due to inflation. You have to find investment vehicles, which makes things really tricky because we do have

values. We do care about the environment. We do care about ordinary people. And we do want to ensure that we're investing in companies that have business practices that treat their workers really well. I care about those things. So I look into those things when I'm considering if if I'm considering investing money. They want to do away with those options. That is what this effort is, all because oil companies know that their business at some point will be obsolete. Okay? And that's the other thing, right? When we're talking about sustainability, the sustainability of the company is important as well. Because we're moving toward renewables, we're moving in a different direction. And fossil fuel companies are holding on for

dear life, holding on like crazy. And so they don't want to deal with a situation in which an institutional investor might turn down their call for an investment because they'll look at the company and be like, I don't know, oil companies, I don't know how relevant they're going to be in a couple decades. Maybe I don't want to invest in this oil company. They're concerned about that too. Now, one thing to keep in mind is that ESG also has critics on the left, and I think the critique is definitely fair, because there's this issue with something called greenwashing, where corporations will verbally, rhetorically commit to certain things, but talk is real cheap, right? So let's take a look at how that plays out. The skepticism around ESG investing is

warranted. There are companies that disclose information just for the sake of disclosing, and so far there hasn't been a lot of accountability in terms of stated goals versus progress towards the goals. How do you differentiate as an investor between a company that's talking the talk and a company that's walking the walk? And here, what we think we need to do is start tracking companies' achievements of the goals that they're stating in their corporate sustainability reports, etc. And that's one of the critical differentiating features when it comes to analyzing companies. In Europe, laws mandate that public companies, asset managers, and pension funds must disclose environmental, social, and governance risks in their investments. The U.S.

doesn't have the same level of transparency. And that's a problem, because what ESG investing ends up being in the United States is just a marketing ploy by some companies that actually don't walk the walk, even though they talk the talk. So that is a legitimate concern. On top of that, though, what we're seeing by this well-funded conservative effort is that it's working. And it often does when people aren't paying attention and they're strategically working on something that's well, well funded. So let's give you the details, okay? Believe it or not, one of the proponents of ESG investing is the head of Black Rock, which I did not expect. Apparently Black Rock Chief Executive Larry Fink has promoted ESG saying it's good business to consider these factors

when putting money to work. Climate risk investment, he says. He said in 2020, and it's an annual letter he sent to CEOs. So consumers research made a website, who is Larry Fink.com, deriding Fink as woke. And how did he respond to that? At the World Economic Forum's annual meeting last month, Fink called the attacks against him and Black Rock demonizing and personal and said he would like to address misconceptions. Oh, interesting. And then he went on to highlight that Black Rock is one of the biggest investors in the global fossil fuel industry. Don't worry, don't worry, we're still investing in the fossil fuel industry. Don't worry, okay?

I want to clear up any misconceptions. Please, please don't be mean to me. Please don't be mean to me. Other signs that this conservative effort is working, Vanguard Group announced in December that it would pull out of the net zero asset managers initiative. Signatories commit to supporting the goal of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The move came days after consumers research and 13 Republican state attorneys general complained to the federal energy regulatory commission about what it called the firm's environmental activism.

You know, it's interesting because right wing billionaire activism, totally cool, totally cool. Environmental activism, big no-no, so taboo, so taboo. And a dozen states have considered anti-ESG legislation, okay? In fact, that was last year. This year, as many as 16 states are considering the legislation. In November, the Labor Department under the Biden administration issued a rule that allows federal retirement plan managers to factor ESG into investment decisions. But a congressional effort to repeal the rule is underway supported by Democratic Senator

Joe Manchin of West Virginia, of course, in the narrowly divided Senate. because he's a little punk. That's who Joe Manchin is. Little self-interested, greedy, grubby little punk. So when you hear how, you know, what conservatives really celebrate is more freedom, more options. You have more choices under the system that they champion. No, you don't, because they don't give the damn about your personal values or your principles. They want to do away with more options to ensure that the only option,

you have left is investing in corporations that don't give a damn about the environment, don't give a damn about their workforce, don't give a damn about diversity, and all they really care about is their bottom line. That's it. I guess that's freedom for the right wing. Gotta take a break. We'll be right back. Welcome back to the show, everyone. All right, we've got two more stories I want to get done in the first hour. So why don't we get right to our next one? And it really has to do with how the private healthcare industry is taking advantage of publicly funded programs like Medicare and Medicaid to increase their profits.

So let's discuss. A new report by Wendell Potter, who used to work for the private health insurance, industry and the center for health and democracy finds that private health companies are actually making a killing, really increasing their profits through public money that was specifically allocated for public programs like Medicare and Medicaid. How exactly is that happening? Well, think about how private prisons are funded. Private prisons are privately run, but they're publicly funded. And that is what we are starting to see with the Medicare and Medicaid industry.

Let me explain. Government programs like Medicare and Medicaid are now the source of roughly 90% of the health plan revenues from Humana, Centini or Centenae and Molina. The seven top for-profit insurance companies in the United States have seen their combined revenues from taxpayer-backed program soar by 500. percent reaching 577 billion dollars in 2022 alone compared to 116.3 billion in 2012. So the other companies, by the way, include United Health, Cigna, you've got CBS, Etna, and Elevance. Now, what happens is the government engages in these public-private partnerships, which are terrible. And what we're doing is we're having private health insurance companies essentially handle or service, Medicare and Medicaid. The big insurers now manage most states's Medicaid programs and make billions of dollars, according to Wendell Potter off these programs.

They make billions of dollars for shareholders doing so. But most of the insurers have found that selling their privately operated Medicare replacement plans is even more financially rewarding for their shareholders. So guys, there's Medicare, which is the government program, mostly for elderly people to ensure that they have health coverage in their later years. And then there's Medicare Advantage. And Medicare Advantage might trick you into thinking that it is the same as Medicare. Just, you know, you're paying a little extra for more coverage. You know, that's the way that it's kind of marketed and sold to people. Except it is not Medicare.

It is a privatized model. And what these private health insurance companies are doing is as they are managing Medicaid on a state level, they're marketing and selling Medicare Advantage. or the private plans to consumers and it is disastrous. So in addition to their focus on Medicare and Medicaid, the companies also profit from generous subsidies the government pays insurers to reduce the premiums they charge individuals and families who do not qualify for either Medicare or Medicaid

or who work for an employer that does not offer subsidized coverage. So Medicare advantage enrollment among the big health insurance companies happen to increase 252% in just 10 years between 2012 and 2022. The big seven now control more than 70% of Medicare advantage market. So that's how they're making their money. My question is, why is the government having private insurers manage their Medicaid programs? Why isn't the federal government doing something? to stop the, you know, deceptive marketing that's taking place in regard to Medicare Advantage. Now, the Kaiser Family Foundation found that more than 28 million people were

enrolled in a privately run Medicare Advantage plan last year, nearly half of the Medicare eligible population. And one of the things that they do is it's privately run. but it's publicly funded, right? So what the private insurers do is they overcharge Medicare for the services that their patients need to, of course, pad their pockets. So they're stealing money from the taxpayers. And they also, while they market that they provide better coverage than Medicare alone, in reality, they deny coverage for all sorts of treatments that people clearly need.

That's how they make their money. It's privately run. Of course, of course. So this ruthless profiteering poses a threat to the stability of Medicare's financing. It, along with Medicaid, is funded through a payroll tax that is split between an employer and an employee, the surplus of which goes into the hospital insurance trust fund. That fund is expected to run out in 2028, according to the New York Times. Which makes a lot of sense because if you have privately run health insurance companies ripping off the Medicare system by overcharging for the services they provide for the patients, then yeah, we're going to run out of money, obviously. So shouldn't there be regulations in place to prevent it from happening? Shouldn't there be better oversight? Why is Wendell Potter the only person who seems to be raising alarm over this issue?

It's insane. I mean, the redistribution of wealth from the bottom to the top is pretty freaking clear here, isn't it? And again, there's the deceptive marketing, there's the terrible coverage that's marketed as better coverage than Medicare. And then there's the theft that takes place of the public money that funds the Medicare system. It's absolutely disgusting. And it goes on all the time with no media. attention with the exception of the American prospect, common dreams, TYT, because corporate media is not going to cover this. Corporate media provides cover for corporations, including the

private health care industry, as they are ripping us off and stealing our public funds to pad their pockets. That's what's happening. All right, one more story for you in the first hour before we bring John in. This is a good story, a hopeful story. Today, Bernie Sanders did something awesome. Senator Bernie Sanders announced that he will be holding a vote to subpoena, the head. of Starbucks, Howard Schultz, also known as the union busting CEO of Starbucks, of course. If the subpoena passes, meaning if he's actually issuing the subpoena and the hearing takes

place, it would lead to a showdown, okay, between the best progressive in Congress hands down, Senator Sanders, and one of labor's biggest enemies, especially at the moment, considering the labor-busting, union-busting efforts that we've seen from Schultz in recent months. Now specifically, the Senate health education, labor, and pensions committee, also known as the help committee, will be voting on the subpoena, right? So that's what we mean when we say if the subpoena passes. Bernie is, in fact, the head of that committee. And here's what Bernie says. He says that the National Labor Relations Board NLRB has filed over 75 complaints against Starbucks for violating federal labor law. And there have been over 500.

unfair labor practice charges lodged against Schultz's company. The violations include illegal firing of more than a dozen Starbucks workers. For nearly a year, he says that, Bertie says, I and many of my colleagues in the Senate have repeatedly asked Mr. Schultz to respect the constitutional rights of workers at Starbucks to form a union and to stop violating federal labor laws. He has denied meeting and document requests, skirted congressional oversight attempts, and refused to answer any of the serious questions we have given him. Unfortunately, Bernie says, Mr. Schultz has given us no choice but to subpoena him.

Man, it feels good to see a real progressive, someone who really wants to fight for labor, had an incredibly important Senate committee like this. So Bernie also reintroduced the pro act, something that I feel pretty much every other lawmaker has completely forgotten about. The pro act would have bolstered the rights of labor in this country. Now, if you've missed the reporting on the Starbucks unionization efforts, I think it's important to fill you in on it and for everyone else to get a little bit of a refresher, because they have good reason to want to unionize and have a seat at the table.

Let's watch. The communication between higher-ups and our stores started to become non-existent. They introduced so many new things like components to drinks, mobile orders, deliveries. We were never given the tools to make that happen properly. We were doing all this extra work, and we weren't getting paid for. for what we think we think that we were worth. Certainly sounds familiar. A lot of American workers can relate to that,

but some of the workers over at Starbucks decided, we're gonna fight back. Power in numbers, we're gonna unionize. And to be sure, Starbucks executives have been trying to squash those efforts. And when it comes to the stores that did succeed in unionizing, they won't sit down and engage in good faith contract negotiations, which by the way is against the law. And that's why Bernie wants to call Howard Schultz to a hearing, subpoena him and ask him some questions.

Now, here's the latest on the labor struggles at Starbucks. Starbucks workers have succeeded in unionizing 278 stores. It's incredible. Now, the unionizing workers just got some support from some of their colleagues on a corporate level. So the corporate Starbucks employees have sent them an open letter, and what they're arguing is that not only do they deserve the support, but some of these corporate Starbucks employees are dealing with labor issues of their own. So the four dozen who signed this letter of support to the unionizing workers say that they're upset about the company's return to office policy, which, and they're also upset about the rampant union busting. Now, they say we love Starbucks, but these actions are fracturing trust in Starbucks leadership. Morale is at an all time low, and the brand reputation and financial value of this publicly traded company are at risk. The letter follows an internal survey last year that showed corporate staff's faith in the company's ethics and social impact fell to historic lows amid the union fight and return to office policies. Now, one employee who signed the letter also said, quote, a lot of people just want to have

their grievances and their demands erred and hope for change. If it doesn't lead to any meaningful change, then the next step is obviously to think about possibly unionizing. That's exactly right. That's exactly right. And that's the reason why these companies, these executives, don't want the workers to unionize. because once you have some protection, once you have a union, once you have a union that potentially has a strike fund that can sustain you if you do decide to strike against the

company, you've got a little bit of power, you've got a little bit of leverage, and you have more of a say over your working conditions and also how much you get paid. Now, the workers also got another big win this week. Austin Locke, who was one of the union organizers at his Starbucks store in New York, was fired shortly after the company heard word of his organizing efforts. But it turns out that he's been reinstated. The authorities basically say, no, he was illegally fired. He must be reinstated.

And he was reinstated to his position with over $20,000 of back. pay and penalties. So this is what the NLRB does. This is why the NLRB is important. This is why right-wing conservatives despise the NLRB, because when the NLRB works the way it's supposed to, the National Labor Relations Board, it provides protections for workers who retaliated against for practicing their rights in the workplace, including organizing their workplace. That said, the Starbucks workers have yet to reach a first contract with the company, because, of course, the company doesn't want to engage in those negotiations. Starbucks representatives have walked out on dozens of negotiating sessions.

Currently, there's no federal law that punishes companies for negotiating in bad faith. And meanwhile, Howard Schultz is making his shareholders real happy, real happy. So according to company filings reviewed by More Perfect Union, the first fiscal quarter of In 2020, the company repurchased $1.9 million in shares of its common stock, valued together at $191.4 million. Starbucks forecasted that it would return $20 billion to shareholders by the end of fiscal year 2025 between regular buybacks and dividends, because that's what matters here, the investors. Not the workers who are generating the revenue on behalf, of Starbucks, the investors who park their money in the company sit back and expect to get a

nice return for doing nothing more than providing capital. That's how the system works. They're apparently more important than the very workers who are generating the revenue in the first place. The workers strike, how do you generate the revenue? That's what the executives are concerned about. But you know, you could prevent a strike by actually treating your workers well. And whether Howard Schultz likes it or not, this wave of unionizing has taken off. And I hope it continues. Because really, if you're waiting for lawmakers to protect you, it ain't going to happen. Sometimes you do have to take matters into your own hands. There is power in numbers. And when you look at this country's history and the economic booms that this country

experienced, especially in the 50s, it was mostly because of unionized labor. It was because of labor power. It wasn't because they happened to elect the right people in Congress. You can elect all the right people in Congress, but the system sucks them in, and they do exactly what you see Progressives doing in Congress right now. Pretty much nothing, with the exception of Bernie Sanders. You need an outside pressure campaign, and you get that through organized workers. All right, we got to go. We got to take a break.

But when we come back, John Ida Rola will be joining me for the second hour. we will try to lighten things up a little bit. We're going to dunk on a conservative lawmaker who is calling for safe spaces on national television. It's just chef's kiss story of the day. Don't miss it. We'll be right back. Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks.

Support our work. Listen 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.