The Young Turks - Don't stop Believin'

Episode Date: October 25, 2021

Lawyer, scholar, educator, and author Anita Hill joins The Young Turks to discuss her new book #Believing and more. Democrats may ditch Medicare expansion and paid leave in last-minute social spending talks. The key to President Biden’s climate agenda is likely to be cut because of Joe Manchin's opposition. Wisconsin lawmakers slowly peeling away child labor laws. January 6 protest organizers say they participated in ‘dozens’ of planning meetings with members of Congress and White House staff. Hosts: Ana Kasparian, Cenk Uygur Guest: Anita Hill 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. One of the hardest parts of getting older is feeling like something's off in your body, but not knowing exactly what. It's not just aging. It's often your hormones, too.

When they fall out of balance, everything feels off. But here's the good news. This doesn't have to be the story of your next chapter. hormone harmony by Happy Mammoth is an herbal formula made with science-backed ingredients designed to fine-tune your hormones by balancing estrogen, testosterone, progesterone, and even stress hormones like cortisol. It helps with common issues such as hot flashes, poor sleep, low energy, bloating, and more. With over 40,000 reviews and a bottle sold every 24 seconds, the results speak for themselves.

A survey found 86% of women lost weight, 77% saw an improved mood, and 100% felt like themselves again. Start your next chapter feeling balanced and in control. For a limited time, get 15% off your entire first order at happy mammoth.com with code next chapter at checkout. Visit happy mammoth.com today and get your old self back naturally. All right, welcome to the Young Church, Jake U Granix, Sparron, with you guys. It's a lovely and tragic day. Progressives are on the precipice of folding on nearly everything in negotiations. We'll get to that a little bit later.

But we have an amazing guest for you guys. Anna. Yes, well, I'm very excited for this conversation. So joining us now is Anita Hill, author of believing our 30 year journey to end gender violence. Anita Hill, thank you so much for joining us today. It's a pleasure to be on your program. I'm looking forward to this conversation, not only to discuss what you've done in your career, what you've been through, but also to kind of focus on where we are as a nation today

in regard to issues pertaining to gender violence, sexual harassment, sexual assault, all of those issues. I want to start, though, by asking about the aftermath of your testimony regarding the sexual harassment by now Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, you know, you took a tremendous risk in speaking out, and I'm sure there were consequences for that that I'd like you to share with the audience. Well, yes, absolutely, there were consequences after I left Washington. I think most people just assume that when I left Washington after testifying my life resumed as normal, but absolutely it did not. I was threatened that my job.

was threatened. My family was threatened. Friends lost jobs because of it. We, you know, I think one of the things that we need to learn from these situations is that there is before and there's a during and there's an after testimony. And the after testimony can go on for weeks and months and years in some cases. And that's exactly what happened to me. Nevertheless, what I'm here to say now is that I have survived that. I've moved on and actually have developed a real understanding about what 1991 meant and how it's still a reflection of some of the very bad behavior and bad outcomes and bad processes that exist in our country today. So Professor Hill, let me start with an apology. Now, when I was watching those hearings,

and I watched it meticulously back in 91. I was 21 years old and a Republican, and I didn't believe you, and I want to apologize for that. Now it had no effect, even my roommates didn't agree, and I influenced no one, and I was not a talk show host, but it's personal to me, it's personal to you, so I just wanted to say that on behalf of all of the people who were wrong. And so, and I want to ask a question related to that. How much did you expect people like me and others, much more relevant people, to not believe

you. And what made you come forward at that time anyway? Well, what made me come forward, well, first of all, let me say thank you for that apology. Your apology is accepted. But let me just be very clear, the process was set up for you not to believe me. what happens in many of these instances. It's set up. It's stacked against believing anyone coming forward. And that was certainly the case in 1991. Did I expect more? I don't know that I expected more, but I still felt that it was my responsibility to provide information to the Senate

Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary Committee was deciding on a nominee that would serve on the Supreme Court, our country's highest court, for a lifetime. And that's not only important to me as a lawyer, but it's important to me as an individual who lives in this country who can benefit or to be, can be deeply harmed by the wrong person making decisions like those that suggest he is above the law, which was a case in terms of his behavior toward me. You know, as you as you talk about decisions being made, I can't help but think about the various context in which panels of men or legislators consisting mostly of men make decisions

that overwhelmingly impact the lives of women. In your case, you had the Senate Judiciary Committee that was composed of men. President Joe Biden at the time was the chair of that committee. And the line of questioning lacked any and all empathy. More importantly, lacked any perspective on what it's like to be a woman in the workplace. In the case of Texas, you know, you have mostly male legislators voting in favor of a law now that essentially bans abortion and violates reproductive rights in that state. And there's really no consideration for, first of all, what the lived experiences are for women and how these decisions. negatively impact women's lives.

Do you feel that things have really changed in the last 30 years in that regard? Well, I think a number of things have changed. But let me just say this, I think with regard to any legislation, one of the things that we have to address in this country is the value that people put on women in their lives and the impact that those pieces of legislation can possibly have to something like the basic safety. And that was what was going on in Washington in 1991. And as you suggested, it's still going on today. Legislators largely men or largely male-led legislative actions are influenced by people's experiences and lack of empathy and lack of willingness to understand how what they decide impacts our lives. And in the case of questions around sexual harassment, reproductive rights, sexual assault, really imperils the lives of women and many others, non-binary folks. And in many cases, some men as well.

And so I think there's this real need for us to have representation that reflects. the experiences that we all have, you know, one of the great examples of the court being sort of out of step was called out by Ruth Bader Ginsburg on a number of times when times when she said, you, you, the members of the court who were in the majority in some cases in which she dissented, you do not understand the lives of women. And I think it goes one step further. You don't value the lives of women because if you valued the lives of women, the Senate Judiciary Committee would have taken time to understand sexual harassment in 1991. They would have taken time to understand sexual assault in 2018 when Christine Blasey Ford testified.

So Professor Hill, I want to, I'm going to go back to this one last time. I really want to talk about, you know, the general thesis that you're laying out in the book. But when I look back at what they did wrong, it's hard for me as an outside observer to pinpoint what it is. And I'm sure that you have opinions on that. So how Republicans treated you is obvious. But what do you think Senator Biden back then should have done differently that could have given you a fair here? Well, just as I was referring to, he could have called expert witnesses to talk about sexual harassment. It could have, there were witnesses waiting to be called who were experts in

sexual harassment, who I didn't know, but who could have informed the committee, could have formed the American public, could have helped them understand how that the problem works in the workplace and why people don't come forward. Yet what Biden allowed was to me to be accused of lying because I didn't come forward sooner when that is, in fact, the norm. and experts could have told him that. The other flaw was, of course, that he failed to call other witnesses who had experienced the same behavior with Clarence Thomas, witnesses that I didn't know, but who were available and ready to be called on. They were not. They, their statements were entered into the record in a written document.

But of course, we know that there's nothing like having witnesses appear in person. You know, I just want to be clear that, you know, I talk about 1991 in the book. And I talk about it not because, you know, I'm stuck in 1991. I'm talking about it because it's a reflection of what's going on in the country today, not only in public spaces, but also in private corporations where witnesses, people come forward. And they're not given any attention. They're not valued. They may not even have their claim investigated, just as it was not investigated.

Cushing Blasby-Fords wasn't investigated. We have a problem, and I learned this very early on, that 1991 wasn't just about sexual harassment in the workplace. I learned very early on from an incest survivor that what he experienced, what he tried to come forward, to tell his parents about his abusive relative was very much like what I experienced in 1991. But I've also heard from people who are survivors of intimate partner violence. I've heard from people who are rape and sexual assault survivors.

The problem really is bigger than sexual harassment in the workplace. It's about bullying in schools, three-quarters. Excuse me, 34% of middle school children are cyber bully, whether homophobia, racism, or misogyny, trolling, and other kinds of behavior that exist that really impair all the lives of individuals of all ages. And 1991 opened that conversation. We have moved beyond 1991 in some way. in terms of public awareness, but the behavior is still going on. And the processes that are meant to protect us are not working. Real quick follow-up. I know that he took forever to apologize to you, but eventually now President Biden did apologize.

Did he ever explain to you or anyone else why he never called those witnesses? I don't have an explanation for that. But what I really want today in 20, 21, 30 years later, is more than an apology to me. I really want a leader, whether it's a leader in the White House today, tomorrow, you know, in the next election. I want a leader that really understands the depth of this problem, the breadth of it in this country, the whole group of behaviors that I'm calling gender-based violence. And the harm that is causing individuals, causing their families, causing their communities, causing institutions, and I want a leader that's going to commit to doing something about the problem. We've got a lot going for us now.

We have people who are aware. We have people like you who have changed their minds and are now open to understanding this better. But we have to have leadership to make the change that will ultimately change the process that we put people into and allow more people to step forward and perhaps even reduce the amount of behavior that is going on today. You know, it's interesting that you mentioned having strong leaders who are actually willing to do something because when you really put everything into context, we're currently living in this political age where legislation that is favored by the vast majority of Americans

across the political aisle doesn't get passed because we don't have good leadership. We have lawmakers who are motivated by their self-interest, by their financial interests, by political expediency, all of that stuff. And so when you think about economic policy, for instance, something that should be far easier for these lawmakers to pass, considering the popularity of a more robust social safety net, they fail time and time again. And typically, they pay lip service to the issues that we're talking about right now during this interview. Issues regarding gender violence, racial discrimination. Good example is what happened in the aftermath of the Black Lives Matter protest

last summer. Lots of lip service paid by Democratic lawmakers in the form of Black Lives Matter mural, but behind the scenes, essentially allowing any effort to reform policing to just kind of fall by the wayside. And so what do you think, for those who want to do something, what do you think is the best path forward to really bring about change, to push our lawmakers to be the leaders that they claimed they wanted to be when they were running in their elections? Well, we have to push on these issues. I mean, in the 2020 election, the issue of gender race violence. violence very rarely even came up. It came up a couple of times when now President Biden was asked about an apology. But it did not come up in terms of asking any of the candidates, clearly what they would do to respond to.

So we've got to, as a voting population, as a populace, to press the issues ourselves. We've got to expect that anyone who is leading this country, will be concerned about the statistics. The one in four women will be sexually assaulted in college when they go to college. And the number is greater for those women who don't go to college. We need to be concerned about the fact that one in four women will be a victim of intimate partner abuse. We need to be concerned about the one in six men or boys who are sexually assaulted. And that, to me, is the public crisis.

What we tend to have happened is that people don't understand that this is part of their responsibility, that taking care of the safety and well-being of individuals are part of a leader's responsibility. But what happens instead is that we try to personalize a problem and we put the entire burden of eliminating it on the victims themselves, the victims who are less likely to have control of the processes that are less likely to be defining and shaping the culture within our organizations. And what that ends up with is that we keep perpetuating it and passing it on to from generation to generation. And I'm saying that it's time for this generation, my generation, those of us who are in control to stop it, to make a change, to make a commitment, and bring in survivors and victims

to help find the solutions. Final question for me is regarding the type of people who tend to get promoted, fail upward, if you will, into these leadership positions. And there are countless examples to give you. I mean, you referenced Brett Kavanaugh earlier, Brett Kavanaugh, who, infamously had to be part of a hearing because he was accused of attempted rape when he was younger is now a Supreme Court justice. You also have Donald Trump who was still voted in as president of the United States after

he was caught on tape bragging about physically assaulting women and grabbing them by their genitals. And so when you look at the, I guess the values of society as a whole, do you ever feel despair? I mean, how do you have the mental strength necessary to kind of get past that and continue fighting for a better society that doesn't actually promote these people into leadership positions? Well, I'm encouraged because people still come forward. People still speak out.

We just need to all join and put that energy together, the energy together that we need to affect change. One of the ways that we can think about it is that we have. many people now across the political whole spectrum who is saying that they believe deeply in democracy. But just if we take a very few of those of the Democrats who say they believe in democracy, this problem of gender-based violence is a mark and not a good mark. It's a bad mark on our democracy. When you think about the institutions that have really been corrupted by this problem. Our courts, our legislative body, our three most out of the last five

presidents have been accused of sexual misconduct. Look at what's going on in our military. This problem is a threat to our democracy and we need to address it at such and stop thinking about it as a personal problem that we alone as victims and survivors have to endure or find our own solutions for. All right, and my last question, Professor Hill is when I talk to other guests, I sometimes talk about how we're still in a sense in the post-Civil War era, that we never fully recovered, we never got to full equality, and history will look back and say, oh yes, this was still squarely in the post-sival war era for America. And I feel the same way about the 19th Amendment. And I'm wondering if you feel that it would be helpful to discuss it in that context

so people understand, well, you know, just 100 years ago, almost quite literally, women didn't even have the right to vote, let alone the assumptions that went along with how women would be treated at home, when their families, workplace, and that we're still working through that process, and that maybe if we frame it that way, people can begin to understand that search for freedom and equality that you're talking about. Well, I think that's a wonderful way to begin to open the conversation. As a matter of fact, I did so in the book, to talk about what does universal freedom and universal rights mean if in fact any of those rights can be taken away by violent behavior, then it's absolutely meaningless to say that we have the right to vote or that we have the right to an education or a right to work if in fact that right can be taken away. taken away, it can be altered, it can be reduced by abusive behavior in the institutions

that we find ourselves. So I think you're absolutely right. I think but we have to go not just look at the 19th Amendment. We've got to also consider how even within the 19th Amendment, race was an issue that there was, you know, that the suffrage movement was in many cases exclusive of women of color and that the fight for women's suffrage really almost completely fell apart because of racism within the ranks. So it's a good place to start. But I think starting with the 19th Amendment is, but this the concept of what universal suffrage and universal rights actually mean in this country if we can't protect people. from abuse.

Professor Anita Hill, thank you so much for joining us. And everyone please check out her book, believing our 30 year journey to end gender violence. Thank you again. It was a pleasure having you on the show. Thank you both. Thanks. All right, well, we're gonna take a brief break,

but when we come back, we're gonna give you the latest on the ongoing negotiations regarding the budget reconciliation bill. What has been cut? What will remain? We'll give you those details and more. All right, back on TYT as we shuffle papers back and forth. Jank and Anna with you guys, and you're about to get depressed.

So that's my fair warning to you. Now let's tell you about the awful state of negotiations. Corporate Democrats have managed to chop up the budget reconciliation bill into something that's essentially unrecognizable with cuts to paid family leave and two years of free community college completely being taken out of the bill. But there's more. Now they're considering doing away with Medicare expansion as well. And to be quite honest with you, all of this is predictable when you think about this system we're living under and how incentives and disincentives work. With that said, let me give you the latest details from Politico. Advocates and lobbyists said

that a plan to expand Medicare with dental vision and hearing benefits for tens of millions of seniors, as well as a pitch to guarantee paid family and medical leave to all U.S. workers is now in danger of getting cut from the bill entirely. Let me just repeat that last word, because some people tend to have a difficult time understanding what that means. Cut from the bill entirely, not, oh, maybe we'll cut a little bit of the funding. No, cut from the bill entirely, meaning that that Medicare expansion would cease to exist in the final bill.

Now the party had originally pushed for scaled down versions of all its priorities, including temporary expansions of Medicaid, Medicare benefits, and Obamacare subsidies after resistance from centrists in the House and Senate had forced the cutting of more than $1 trillion from the package. But cutting that $1 trillion from the package apparently wasn't good enough for corporate Democrats like Senator Joe Manchin or Senator Kirsten Cinema. Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer have said that they want to deal by the end of the week.

However, with all of these cuts, all of these concessions to the corporatist wing of the party, we still don't have a commitment from the likes of Mansion or cinema. The proposed new Medicare benefits have always been vulnerable, writes Politico, given a wave of lobbying against them from the healthcare industry. Those lobbying against the Sanders-backed expansion include private insurance companies and dentists whose precious, precious profits would take a hit if more seniors enrolled in traditional Medicare and didn't have to buy supplemental private plans to cover their dentures, hearing aids, and glasses. So again, Biden, let me just be very clear on this, okay?

Biden has not used any sticks. He has not threatened any type of consequences or punishment toward Mansion or cinema. All he's done is passed out carrots. Mansion, I'm going to give your wife the job that she wants within the federal government. Mansion, I'm going to give you all the concessions you want. And Mansion, along with cinema, has succeeded in completely destroying this piece of legislation. But while it might be easy to blame Mansion and Cinema, and believe me, there's a lot of blame to go around, I think that really the heart of this issue is the insane weakness and cowardice that we saw from Joe Biden.

The real question is, what are progressives planning on doing? And now, Jank, why don't you take it away? Yeah, so don't get us wrong. It's about to get way worse. And it's got more details on parts they're taking out, and they're pretty much gutting the entire thing. So hold on for more devastating details. So, look, the bill is so gutted at this point that if I was advising the progressives, I would tell them to vote, no.

Yeah, same. So, because at some point, half a loaf isn't- It's not even half a loaf. Guys, look, that's the proverbial saying that people put out there. But when you look at the details for progressives, it's almost no loaf at all. The rest of it is just corporate gobbledygook. And so it'll make it look like half the loaf, but they've really taken almost everything we wanted out of the bill.

So then why vote yes? And the answer is because you don't want to get yelled at. And that's a really, really bad answer. So it's, oh, well, you know, Democratic unity. Well, mention it similar, don't seem to care about Democratic unity at all. They also don't seem to care about getting yelled at by their own constituents. Yeah, they don't care at all. So look, there's a reason for that.

It's not because they're more courageous. It's because their source of power comes from corporate cash. And their corporate donors have told them, we don't want any of those progressive positions. That affects our taxes and we don't want to pay for any of it. So Manchin at one point in the Democratic caucus looked at Bernie Sanders and the rest of the caucus and said, I am happy to have zero in this bill. And he made him hand motion apparently and basically said, kill the bill, I don't care. because my donors have told me to kill the goddamn bill if you need to.

But if you're not gonna kill it, make sure there's barely anything in it. And so then if you're gonna draw the line like that, progressives also have to draw the line. Otherwise, just as a matter of simple negotiations, there's no answers or butts about this. The progressives, if they do not draw the line, will get steamrolled. That's right. And that's what we're definitely in the middle of right now. Right, look, the precedent thus far has been that progressives will get pressured and cave into the demands of the corporate Democrats.

Yep. That is the precedent. Right now for the first time, progressives have a block that could actually flex power. Now corporate Democrats are used to the precedent. They do not believe that progressives would really flex their power once push comes to shove. And to be sure, there's going to be a tremendous amount of pressure for progressives to play ball. And yes, I think that Pramila Jayapal is going to have an incredibly difficult time keeping her caucus together on this. issue, right?

But with that said, I mean, with that said, though, we don't need every single progressive in the progressive caucus to be unified in response to this. We just need enough progressives to block the bipartisan infrastructure bill and refuse to vote in favor of this bill, of the budget reconciliation bill, unless it actually has the provisions that matter. Based on what we're reading today, it will not have the provisions that matter. It will not have Medicare expansion, despite the fact that Senator Bernie Sanders, chair of the Senate Budget Committee, claims that he won't stand for it.

It will absolutely be included. But as the negotiation stand today, Biden's like, whatever you want, whatever you want, Mansion, I'll cut it, right? As long as you vote in favor of it. And even with these concessions, Mansion is still not committed to voting in favor of it. I'm sorry, the bipartisan infrastructure bill is garbage. It privatizes public infrastructure, we don't want it, okay? I don't care about its passage.

In fact, I would very much like it to not pass. The reconciliation bill, as it stands today with all those cuts, doesn't go nearly far enough. Half a loaf, it's not even a quarter of a loaf. They've cut out all the important provisions, there's more. So if we're not going to get anything in return for privatizing public infrastructure, I'm sorry, they need to defeat both bills, period. Yes, they're going to get a lot of negative commentary from the corporate media. But it's far better than passing both pieces of legislation.

that don't do nearly enough to improve people's lives and then sit through the corporate media along with corporate Democrats telling us over and over again how successful they are, how unprecedented this is, how much it's going to improve people's lives, when in reality it's going to do the opposite. Okay, privatizing public infrastructure is going to be a complete and utter disaster. It is nothing more than a way of, again, redistributing wealth from the bottom to the top because you have corporations who are going to manage public infrastructure that's now been privatized and they're going to implement all sorts of tolls and fees. It's going to become more expensive for American workers to get around.

That's what the outcome of that bill is going to be at the end of the day. Let's just keep it real. So now, this is super important, guys. If the progressives wait till the so-called deal is announced, then they say they're going to vote no, then they will get all of the blame. You have to do what Mansion and Cinema are doing now. You have to say no now, not later. So that is why, look, I love to give them credit when they deserve it.

And at different parts of this, they have greatly deserved the credit. You have to be open-minded. And saying one-size-fits-all makes no sense. Either I hate progressive leadership. I love progressive leadership. No, you have to use your mind and use your judgment. So when they said, no, we will not vote for the corporate bipartisan bill without first voting for this bill. That was great.

And we gave them all the credit in the world. that is correct negotiation. And look, it's kept us in the ballgame. But now when Jayapal leaves a meeting with President Biden, and Biden says, I'm going to gut most of this stuff, and she does nothing but overflowing praise for Biden, I read that a couple days ago, and I thought, we're screwed. Well, and then every part of them, including progressive leadership,

has not clearly delineated what is a red line for them. So, for example, they said, no climate, no deal. We talked about it on the power hour with Nina Turner last week. Ed Markey seemed to be drawing a line in the sand. Now all of a sudden, that line has disappeared. And there is no line in the sand. If there's no line in the sand for progressives, they will lose on every single issue. This is the fact.

In fact, regarding the climate provisions, already the most important provision is on the chopping block. Let's go to Graphic 5 here. Senator Mansion has told the White House that he strongly opposes the clean electricity program. As a result, White House staffers are now rewriting the legislation without that climate provision and are trying to cobble together a mix of other policies that could also cut emissions. By the way, Senator Kirsten Cinema didn't want to raise taxes on corporations, and guess what? That's been cut out of the bill as one of the major pay force.

So no tax increases on corporations. You know, we're hearing a bunch of nonsense from Democratic lawmakers about like, oh, maybe we'll replace it with some sort of wealth tax. You're not going to replace it with any kind of tax increase on the rich. Let's just keep it real. I'm tired of them pretending as if, no, no, no, but this is a priority of ours. We're going to make sure. No, you have lawmakers, you have the president of the United States who ran on reversing Trump's tax cuts for the rich. And now something as simple as increasing corporate taxes, not back to 35% as they were prior to the Trump era taxes, but raising it to even 25%.

Not going to do it, sorry, because precious cinema isn't going to have it. Yeah, guys, any, if you hear any promise, including from progressives, that, oh, don't worry, Biden gave us a promise to come back to this later. Understand that that's a joke. It's a lie. Okay. It's worse than a joke, it's a lie. Yeah, if they actually believe that, then I feel a bit more sorry because that means you're the suckers at the table. Nobody's coming back to any of this.

This is it. If they can't put it in this bill, they're not going to be able to pass a stand-alone bill. On which planet do you live? No, that means you don't understand politics if you say something as childish as that. Okay, there's nobody, nobody's going back to a goddamn thing, okay? Now, it's so easy to call out a thousand of these things. Well, mention you say you're worried about adding to the deficit. Well, great, it's not going to add deficit because we're going to increase corporate taxes to pay for it.

Well, you say you don't want to increase corporate taxes. We can't have it both ways. Which one is it? Do you want to add it to the deficit or do you want to increase corporate taxes? Make him answer for a question. But no, no one challenges him publicly on that. Certainly Biden doesn't. He doesn't put any pressure on him.

And without sticks, he's going to run rough shot over this thing. There's still provisions in here that are a little bit helpful. Sure, there's like electric charging stations for electric cars. That's really good. No, and helping the energy infrastructure. No, hold on. And helping the energy infrastructure in this country and have a better energy grid. Yes.

But you can't hang your hat on the usual Obama 5% change. You just can't, and they're doing it now, they're getting steamrolled, and they need strong leadership desperately, and it doesn't look like they have it at this point. Here's what I'm not interested in doing, okay? I'm not interested in joining the cheerleading that we're now seeing from Democrats like Speaker Nancy Pelosi, okay? who's already doing her part in positive PR for a bill that is unrecognizable at this point. Remember the 12 months of paid family leave that was proposed by Biden originally?

That got cut down to only four weeks. And now we're learning that four weeks, we don't want to make that permanent. We'll make it expire in three to four years. Think about that for a second, okay? They also, as I mentioned, are doing away with the major climate provisions that are necessary, not just for their political futures. Who cares about that? For the future of humanity here on Earth, okay? They've taken that out because Mansions got a profit from fossil fuels. He's got his personal investments in the fossil fuel industry.

We can't mess with that. That's very, very important. Also, lots of scaled down versions of things that they were bragging about doing earlier, either completely cut out or scaled down, as I mentioned. And universal pre-K, that so far doesn't seem like it's going to get cut, but understand why, that serves business interests. If business interests can avoid paying higher taxes while ensuring that public money goes into pre-K, that means that more mothers, more fathers are freed up to go to work, they can go back

to the minds, that's why they haven't attacked that. But everything else that would actually materially improve Americans' lives, either on the chopping block completely gone or it's been scaled back so much and means tested so much that it's unlikely to have a major impact on Americans' lives. And with that said, with all of those cuts, you have Nancy Pelosi speaking to Jake Tapper over the weekend to brag about how wonderful this bill is, even with everything stripped out of it. Watch. We had the rescue package, $1.9 trillion. We have the infrastructure bill over a trillion. That's around three trillion dollars and we'll have this at two trillion dollars.

Nobody has done anything that remarkable. So while it isn't everything that was put out originally, it does, it takes us down a path where we can continue investments in these. Now this this piece, the care piece, the climate health, the care piece is the, it's all three of them make it transformative America's working families. It is a big bill. It's a very big bill. It would accomplish them.

Even at half, it's a very big bill. It's not transformative. It's not transformative. First of all, the rescue package, they're still bragging about passing coronavirus relief during a pandemic where people were forced to go home, where businesses were forced to shut down. Oh wow, we sent everybody a few checks here and there that did not in any way recover the amount of money they would have been making if they were working. But hey, you know, transformative. It was transformative. Please don't bring up the infrastructure deal, which is a corporate handout bill and nothing more than that.

And then, you know, you want to brag about this reconciliation bill, you've taken everything that matters out of it. So that little clip was enormously telling. Number one, Nancy Pelosi's points that she made is indistinguishable from what Joe Manchin is saying publicly. She said, oh, we already did this trillion and that trillion, and this is already a lot of money. That's exactly what Manchin says. And then Jake Taber, if you noticed, then jumps in as the corporate media cheerleader that he is and goes, oh, it's a big bill. It's already a big bill. I mean, you wouldn't want to do any of the things that are progressive in there.

So what are we talking about? And by the way, when we say progressive, I don't want you to get the wrong idea because of corporate media. It's things that anywhere from two-thirds to 90% of the country agrees with. Yes, that's the percentage that agrees with progressives. You'll never see that. So what am I talking about? So first of all, I'm paid family leave. Do you know how brutal we are as a country?

Just real quick summary, these are the only other countries in the world that don't have paid family leave. Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Papua, New Guinea, Suriname, and the island nation of Tonga. And the United States of America. Every other nation on earth has paid family leave. To be fair, there is one other country out of the 185 that offers less than four weeks, and we're now at four weeks. weeks if those negotiations go through, and that's the law, and it's only for a part of the time. So we would be right around the same ballpark as Eswatini. That used to be Swaziland, it's now Eswatini. So congratulations to us. You know what the average is for the rest of the

world, for when you get, when you have a kid, 29 weeks of leave. And we're now down to maybe maybe. But it has to expire, Jake. And it has to expire. It has to expire. Can't be permanent. So now what percentage of Americans want paid family leave? A gigantic percentage, over 70%.

Okay? Now how about negotiating drug prices? They're taking that out. It is indefensible to take that out. Indefensible. 90% of the country wants that provision in. Have you ever seen 90% on any issue? Look, they say, oh, we're so divided, we're so divided.

No. All the Republicans agree with Democrats and agree with AOC and the progressives that they want to negotiate drug prices. It's insane. We're the only country in the world. Even Eswatini doesn't do that. We're the only ones who say, oh, drug companies, you can charge us anything you want. That's insane.

And yet it's going to be taken out. And by the way, why is it taken out? Because our country is under corporate rule. And corporations do not consent to paying one red cent more. and they will crush you and grind you down. By the way, right wing, if you're mad about that, you're right. You should be mad about that. And what do you think these corporate Democrats and corporate Republicans are agreeing to?

They're agreeing to corporate rule. By the way, yes, we blame Biden and Mansion and cinema and Democratic leadership. But remember, they couldn't do any of that without every single Republican politician in Congress saying, hell no, I would never give anything to the American people. Never. Corporations must have everything. Well, look, Democrats are supposed to differentiate themselves from Republicans. They certainly do in the rhetoric they use in their campaigns. Actions speak louder than words. Actions would have me believe, at least, that corporate Democrats, really on these big issues are no different than Republicans. Just keeping it real.

On economic issues, they're about to prove it. They could prove us wrong. They could pass something that's meaningful. But if they don't, then yes, the great majority of the Democratic Party on economic issues agrees with all the Republicans that corporations should rule us all. We should pay for everything and they should pay for nothing. All right, Wisconsin is loosening up child labor laws. Awesome. We've got that story and more for you when we come back. TYT, Jank and Anna with you guys, look, I'm at the risk of derailing us. Anna was just asking during the break, what's the point of elections? Well, I said, oh, social issues, but you know what?

Have they really done anything in police reform? Nothing. No, they totally let that- Voting rights, nothing. Fall by the wayside. What have they done on any social issues? Nothing. So-

They love to campaign on it. Yeah. You know, Democrats are the good guys. They're the ones who actually care about the disenfranchised, until they're in power and have the ability to do something about it. In that case, all of a sudden, oh, what can we do, our hands are tied. It's just fodder for their political campaigns, it's disgusting. Anyway, moving on to other news.

In response to labor shortages, Wisconsin's state senate has decided to approve a bill that would loosen up regulations pertaining to child labor. Get those kids back at work, make them work long hours. That's what the solution is apparently to the labor shortage. Wisconsin currently sticks to federal child labor laws, which stipulate that people under the age of 16 can only work between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. from June 1st to Labor Day and between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. for the rest of the year. But here's what the state Senate just did. Wisconsin Senate approved a bill on Wednesday that would allow 14 and 15 year olds to work from 6 a.m. to 9.30 p.m. on days before a school day. And 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. when the next day isn't a school day. The bill, by the way, would keep in place federal rules limiting teens to three hours of work on a school night,

eight hours on non-school days, and six days of work per week. And by the way, if some of you guys are wondering, all right, well, what does this mean in regard to the amount that 14-year-olds would be paid, right? You would assume that they would get paid minimum wage. Well, minor workers are entitled to be paid the same minimum wage as other workers, but workers under 20 can be paid as little as $4.25 an hour for up to 90 days of training. If a state has a higher minimum wage, that would supersede the minor wage. But in Wisconsin, the minimum wage is tied to the federal minimum wage at just $7.

$0.25 an hour. In fact, Wisconsin's minimum wage tied to the federal minimum wage, a special minimum wage of just $5.90 per hour, $2.13 per hour for tipped employees, is applicable to opportunity employees under 20 years old who have worked for less than 90 days with their current employer. So it's very likely that some of these 14 year olds who end up working late into the night will get paid just a measly $5.9. 90 cents per hour, but I'm sure there will be all sorts of justifications for why that's okay. They're young, they deserve to be underpaid and exploited like that. Okay, well, we've got a new champion in euphemisms. Child labor is now opportunity

employees. Did you notice that? They just say it without like, oh yeah, of course. Tortures enhanced interrogation. And child labor is opportunity employees. It's a great opportunity to be exploited. Yeah, we gave an opportunity to get paid less. and learn to like it because that's what's going to happen the rest of your life. Now let's talk about the reality of why they're doing this. Is it to give people more of an opportunity? Does anybody still believe that? Okay, so number one, this helps they have a labor shortage.

And why do they have a labor shortage? Because they're not paying enough. You know, labor shortages can be solved overnight by paying more. That's just simple economics. It's like literally what you learn in Econ 101. No, it's not at all complicated, pay more, you won't have any labor shortage, right? But they don't want to pay more to adults. So they say, what if we paid less to kids and had them work till 11 o'clock at night,

and that way we don't have to pay the adults? And the Republicans in Wisconsin go, yes, that's a great idea. Kids, back to the minds. Okay. Now, now one other aspect of this, when they talk about, oh, look, There's this mythology of, it's these young kids who are, you know, got a summer job, they're looking for extra allowance, and this lets them know how the real world works in a good way, and they work their way up.

And it's so they build this mythology. And then, of course, the media trumpets that out as if that's what's actually happening. No. Like, is it true that there's a small percentage of people who are already wealthy, but they're kids, they want them to learn a lesson or two, and they're working at the local piece of area, sure. But the overwhelming majority of the cases are Bobby is working at the pizzeria because mom and dad don't make enough. And they don't have money to give him an allowance.

So he has to work there. He has to work there oftentimes for himself, but oftentimes also to help the family. This is not like some rosy picture you see on TV where they're like, how Bobby's getting some experience. And how he had a good, suffered job. And sure he worked a little longer is that taught him how to be a man. And I'll understand the value of hard work. No, Bobby's got to help mom and dad because they don't have enough money because they're not getting paid any wages. Now they say, well, Bobby, now when you go to work, you're going to get paid less than mom, and that's going to squeeze mom and dad out of the labor force.

And that way corporations will make even more money. That's what this is about. That is what this is about. And I think the point you made about wanting to essentially respond to the labor shortage with increasing the pool of potential workers, with the lowest paid workers is the best point. That's what this is really about. It's a way to prevent what we're told time and time again is the best part about capitalism, right?

That it's all about market forces. And in this case, you have workers who are standing up to terrible pay, terrible working conditions, and what do you think they do? They find loopholes, they find ways to get around it. Not by increasing pay or actually listening to the workers, but in this case, by increasing the pool of workers with individuals who would be paid. far less, 14 year olds. That's it, that's all this is.

And now let me go back to my, unfortunately, the thing that I harp on too much, but it's relevant here. Oh my God, Chad Labor is back, and there's several mainstream media articles I read on it, didn't even note it. They've painted it in a generally positive light. Yep. What else positive about this?

But they'd have no concept of how hard it is for actual Americans working out there at these things, starvation wages. And they don't, they don't, as reporters, they don't even bother pointing out, what are we doing here? This crushes the average worker, not just Bobby. And why is Bobby at 14 years old working at 11 o'clock for depressed wages? No, not one hint of criticism. And generally painted as, hey, look at this, Bobby's got an opportunity. Yeah. And let me let me just make a prediction right here right now. Remember, the 14 year olds will get paid far less than the federal minimum wage, which is already pathetic, right? Federal minimum wage,

725. In Wisconsin, they'll get paid a little more than $5 an hour, as long as it's 90 days or less. Any day above 90 days, it'd have to make the federal minimum wage. Don't be surprised if you see corporations succeed in lobbying lawmakers to repeal that federal rule regarding the 90 for minors. Of course. I mean, we see, again, this country is run by corporations. We've seen how effective lobbying is. You don't think they're gonna lobby to repeal that law?

They'll lobby to repeal that law, and they'll succeed. And I guarantee you, you're gonna see a massive workforce of 14 and 15 year olds working for less than minimum wage, less than the federal minimum wage. So last thing on this is politics. So Wisconsin as a Democratic governor, he should veto this. It should be easy. The easiest thing he's ever done, will he? I have no idea.

That's the state of the, sorry state of the Democratic Party. And the people who suggested this so you're clear about it are all the Republicans in Wisconsin. They think child labor is a great idea and lower wages is a great idea. It's literal. You can go ask them and they'll give you a whole bunch of excuses why you should make less money and their donors should make more off of your work. But there's no question. Republicans in Wisconsin say, bring the kids back to work and pay them.

them less. That does it for our first hour. It just flew by. But when we come back for hour two, we're going to discuss some pretty shocking revelations regarding members of Congress and White House staffers coordinating with Capitol rioters to make the Capitol riot happen. We've got that story and more for you when we return. Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks. Support our work, listen ad-free, access members only bonus content, and more. to Apple Podcasts at apple.com slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.