The Young Turks - President Evil?

Episode Date: February 3, 2022

A Pentagon spokesperson on U.S. troop deployment amid standoff with Russia said, ""I want to be very clear about something: these are not permanent moves...Moreover, these forces are not going to fight in Ukraine. They are going to ensure the robust defense of our NATO allies."" The Biden administration appears to be trying to overturn a ruling that helps those who have been bankrupted by student loans. The BLM Mystery - Where did the money go? Thousands of day-care workers in Washington will get personal checks from the D.C. government for at least $10,000, after the D.C. Council voted unanimously Tuesday to redirect tax dollars from the city’s richest residents to child-care workers. A number of Republican Senate candidates running on anti-Big Tech platforms have stock holdings in the same companies they are vowing to hold accountable if elected to Congress. 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. What's up? Welcome to TYT. I'm your host, Anna Kasparian. And in the second hour, I mean, look, we've got the important substantive stuff. We're going to eat our vegetables in the first hour, okay? We're going to give you an update on Russia. We're going to talk about all of these tough guy, Republican candidates who claim that they're really going to take big, tech to task, except they've got some financial interest to avoid doing so. We'll get to all of that. But in the second hour, dessert, your favorite dessert, whether it's chocolate cake, ice cream, doesn't matter, it's dessert hour.

We're going to talk about Lindsay Graham, finally getting humiliated by Donald Trump. I don't know about you guys, but I've been waiting for that moment, as many of you might already know based on our programming, Lindsay Graham's lips have been. permanently affixed to Donald Trump's ass. And all he needed to do was say one little thing that upset Daddy Trump. And now he's suffering the consequences. So we'll get to that in the second hour. John Idera will be joining me for that discussion. Along with the discussion in regard to Whoopi Goldberg, she said some stuff that apparently made people realize for the first time that maybe she's not necessarily well versed in many things, including history. So we'll

get to that as well. But it is important to give you guys an update on what the U.S. is currently doing to escalate toward potential war with Russia. So let's get started with that pretty terrifying news. The Pentagon has deployed U.S. troops to Eastern Europe in its ongoing escalation with Russia. Now, the Pentagon spokesperson, John Kirby, gave more details in regard to why the U.S. made this decision during a recent press conference. Let's watch. The United States will soon move additional forces to Romania, Poland, and Germany. I want to be very clear about something. These are not permanent moves.

They are moves designed to respond to the current security environment. Moreover, these forces are not going to fight in Ukraine. They are going to ensure the robust defense of our NATO allies. So the United States sees this as a deterrent to Russia, while Russia sees it as a provocative move that threatens their security. So if Russia repeatedly has said that they're concerned about weapons being sold to countries surrounding its borders, if it keeps talking about how it sees additional NATO troops being sent to various Eastern European countries, when Putin Talks about how, hey, yo, you know, I don't want to go to war. I just stop doing things that are hostile to us. Of course, we're going to want to have something in place to protect ourselves should NATO forces or NATO backed forces attack us. The United States responses, we're going to send more troops. We're going to send more weapons. We're going to continue escalating the matter. This escalates the matter. We got to be honest about that, right? But I want to also just note that,

A few weeks ago, Joe Biden noted, and the Pentagon noted, that they would very likely need about 5,800 U.S. troops to be sent to the region. So, 5,800 U.S. troops were put on notice that they could be deployed at any moment. Are the troops who have just been ordered to be deployed to Eastern Europe, part of that 5,800? No, this is an addition to the 5800. So let me give you the specific details here. Biden on Wednesday ordered the deployment of around 3,000 U.S. troops to Poland, Germany, and Romania. So this 3,000 is in addition to the potential 5,800. Okay? Now, this is, of course, a new show of support to allies as Russia continues, its military buildup near Ukraine's borders.

Thousands more troops in the U.S. and Europe remain on alert to move if Russia continues to mass fighting forces. or amass fighting forces. So again, the United States and its NATO allies, well, mostly the United States, there's been some pushback in terms of NATO allies, like Germany, for instance. But the U.S. mostly keeps saying, oh, my God, Russia poses an imminent threat to Ukraine. They are about to invade any minute. Ukrainian intelligence disagrees with that calculation, arguing that while Russia does serve as a threat, this is not an imminent threat, and that they would actually approve.

if the United States would stop saying that because it's causing panic. It's negatively impacting the economy in Ukraine. And so while they're like, okay, sure, I mean, if you want to provide the weaponry and stuff to protect ourselves, should Russia invade, we're all for it. But the rhetoric and some of the other moves that are being done by the Biden administration, I think rightfully make Ukrainian officials nervous. Because it is being interpreted not as a way of, know, preventing Russia from invading. For Russia, it is viewed as a real security risk. And if they see it as a security risk, then of course they're going to amass troops at the border with Ukraine. So look, this is not a diplomatic ploy. It's being sold as a diplomatic ploy

in the corporate press, but it escalates the situation. Needlessly, nothing has changed between, you know, the show that we did on this yesterday and today. Russia hasn't done anything substantive in the last 24 hours that would have anyone believe that it makes sense to immediately deploy 3,000 troops to the region. But let me give you more details. The majority of the soldiers, about 1,700 of them, will be sent to Poland in a development that Polish Minister of Defense said is a strong message of solidarity in response to the situation in Ukraine.

The influx will come on top of the 900 U.S. troops already in Romania, and the 4,000 forces in Poland. France is also sending several hundred troops to Romania. And this comes after the Secretary of Defense alerted soldiers to be ready for deployment. So that's the 5,800 additional soldiers who are on notice who could be deployed as well in addition to the 3,000 who have been deployed today. Now the units have been ordered to leave today, Wednesday. And again, not part of the 8,500 more who could be deployed in coming days or weeks. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin last week ordered 8,500 troops based in the United States to be on alert for rapid deployment to augment the 40,000 strong NATO response force,

which has not yet been activated. By the way, Poland also confirmed that it would send hundreds of soldier-fired anti-aircraft weapons to Ukraine in the coming weeks. The shipment will follow the hundreds of anti-armor javelin missiles sent to the United States, or by the United States, I should say, and Estonia, and anti-air stinger missiles sent by Lithuania and Latvia. So you have all these NATO allies, right, NATO countries, NATO member countries, sending weaponry to Ukraine, which again shares a border with Russia. you have missiles that are supplied by the United States, supplied by NATO member countries that could very easily be pointed to Russia, and Russia sees that as a legitimate security risk. Just imagine the United States in the exact same place.

How would the United States respond to that? If there was an international alliance that was sending weaponry to Mexico, sending all sorts of military capabilities to Mexico and Mexico was considered one of our enemies, how would the United States government respond to that? Would we maybe send soldiers to our border to secure it? I mean, Trump wanted to send soldiers to our border for nonsense perceived threats like asylum seekers who want safety from crime in their home countries. Just let that sink in.

But to give you more, and this is an important part of the conversation that's ongoing between Russia and the United States, you know, there are countries like Romania, for instance, that have missiles that could easily be directed toward Russia. Russia's concerned about that. Romania hosts a NATO missile defense system meant to shoot down ballistic missiles fired at Europe. A second, Aegis Shore, armed with defensive SM3 missiles, is under construction in Poland. and is expected to become operational this year. Moscow has long bristled at the radar and missile sites, claiming that they could quickly be converted to fire offensive missiles into Russia. Charges the U.S. and NATO have, of course, flatly denied. Now, before his press conference, there was an exchange between the United States and Russia in regard to the security concerns on both sides. So Russia made abundantly clear what their security concerns are.

The United States responded to it. That document was leaked to the press, El Pais, I believe. And so Kirby, who is the spokesperson for the Pentagon, was asked to verify that document to ensure that it was actually a valid document that should be reported about and talked about. And so Kirby did in fact say, yeah, I confirmed that that is the real document. These are the communications we're having with Russia. Kirby confirmed the documents purported to be the U.S. and NATO response to Russian demands. The documents say that Washington would be willing to discuss with Russia a transparency mechanism to confirm the absences of Tomahaw cruise missiles in these sites in Romania and Poland, right?

Because again, that is what Russia is concerned about. And so this is good news. Kirby's like, yes, we're having these conversations. We are willing to offer some transparency. So Russia understands that we're not trying to do something offensive. This is really just meant as a deterrent. But then immediately following that, you deploy 3,000 troops to East Europe, Eastern Europe, which escalates the situation.

So you can't on one hand say, no, no, we're having diplomatic talks and we're trying to de-escalate. We're totally trying to de-escalate while simultaneously escalating the situation by sending more weaponry to various countries in the region, more weaponry to Ukraine, which I I have, you know, less of a problem with if it's really just meant to help the country defend itself. But I feel like the United States is still intentionally escalating the situation because there's money to be made, right? I mean, there's already been billions of dollars worth of military weaponry sent to Ukraine.

And even though this is a cause for concern, security concern for Russia, and even though the United States government knows that this escalates the matter, they continue escalating it. The real question is why? And why is it that corporate media seems to be on the same page every time when it comes to war, possible escalation toward war? In fact, let me give you a specific example. CNBC recently interviewed the CEO of Raytheon, who, by the way, was recently bragging about how much money Raytheon is likely to make as a result of this escalation toward Russia.

And just pay attention to the framing of the question here, and more importantly, the the way the CEO of Raytheon answers the question. Let's watch. Are we spending enough on defense? And do we have anything that would make it so? If you inserted 8,000 American soldiers into Ukraine, they can stop 103,000 Russian soldiers. Yeah, I think, obviously, everybody understands the answer to that. It's more symbolic than it is strategic with 8,500 versus 100,000. Are we spending enough money on defense? I don't know.

When you compare the money that we spend on defense versus all of the programs that desperately need to be funded so we can take care of Americans here within our own borders, I think I think our priorities are clearly a little messed up. But I just love that framing. It's just exactly what you can expect from corporate media. But remember, this is all about, this is CNBC. This is all about, hey, how is Raytheon performing in the stock market? How will Raytheon benefit raise more revenue as a result of this conflict with Russia? That's really what the point is here. CNBC is meant to help investors decide whether or not they want to invest in companies like Raytheon.

So that's what this is all about. And of course, the CEO of Raytheon, massive private military contractor says, well, you know, the number of troops that we're thinking about sending over there is mostly symbolic, not strategic. What would be strategic exactly? Well, we've got more from that interview. Let's watch. For our core mission, of course, we're about supporting the warfighter and helping our allies and our country defend democracy around the world. We've got the technologies to help in these engagements, whether it's the Patriot system, some of the radar system, some of the other effectors that we have. But at the end of the day, we have a strong defense as a deterrent to try and prevent things like this from spinning out of control. So the hope is we don't end up with a hot war.

So look, my overall take is there is a financial incentive to engage in this new Cold War with Russia. And it is an irresponsible and incredibly dangerous thing to do, especially when you consider that all it really takes is one mistake. you do enter a hot war. We're talking about serious military weaponry. We're talking about several countries involved in that region. We're talking about, you know, the United States putting out all sorts of accusations that Ukraine is trying to push back against. But it's amazing how little Americans and the American government cares about what Ukrainian intelligence says or what the Ukrainian president has to say about the rhetoric coming from the United States. Look, I want to be clear.

Sure, of course it's important to protect a country like Ukraine from being invaded, right? I think that there's a legitimate debate to be had in regard to what the United States role should be in that regard, right? Because we've gotten involved in all sorts of international conflicts with the intention of protecting human rights or ensuring that various countries can maintain their sovereignty. And things don't typically work out so well. So I think there is a legitimate debate as to whether or not the United States should be involved at all. But that debate isn't even ever had.

We just go for it as if we need to be the ones who police the world. Okay, fine. But then the claim that we're doing this in a diplomatic way, the claim that we're doing this in an effort to de-escalate the situation is ridiculous because that is not what we're doing. We're doing the exact opposite of that. I would like to de-escalate the situation. That is not the same as saying I would like to see Russia invade Ukraine. Some people like to conflate those two opinions. My opinion is, hey, don't want Russia to invade Ukraine.

I also would like to prevent a hot war. So why don't we find strategies to de-escalate? Offering transparency in regard to what NATO allies are doing, sounds great. Sounds like that actually is a diplomatic path forward. But you immediately counter that diplomatic path by escalating the situation with more weapons and obviously with more deployed troops. So that's my take on it. We'll see how this all plays out. I do think that this is an effort to just redistribute money to defense contractors. Engage in a Cold War, an arms build up. These corporations will get to benefit from it. And hopefully, hopefully we can prevent things from devolving further into a hot war.

But again, it's incredibly irresponsible. And I would just ask that we actually pay attention to what Ukraine is saying. U.S. officials have repeatedly warned that a Russian invasion in Ukraine is imminent while Ukrainian officials have urged calm. Ukrainian president Vladimir Zelensky has criticized Western descriptions of the threat as undermining Ukrainians' faith in their government and stoking economic panic across the nation. All right, we got to take a quick break. When we come back, we have more news for you, including Biden, still fighting to ensure that student loans will haunt people for the rest of their

lives. It is an incredible story. Don't miss it. We've got that and more when we come back. In our members-only bonus episode today, John Iderola will be joining me. Oftentimes we talk about some personal stories. We share some home improvement projects we're working on. And it's been a while since I've done a home improvement project. So for our members, I'm going to be sharing something that I've been working on in my place. And we also have a fun story about Balsack News. BallSack News is a thing.

And some people do take it seriously, namely Fox News, which got trolls. It's such a great story. So you can become you can become a member by going to YouTube by going to t.com slash join or if you're on YouTube just click on that join button and you can join that way. And special thanks to our members who keep us afloat, who keep us sustainable and keep us honest. We love you guys. All right. Well, let's move on to some news from the Biden administration in regard to student loans. Joe Biden claimed that he was willing to cancel up to $10,000 in student loans to really. help students out with this ever-growing student loan debt crisis that we're experiencing in this country, about $1.7 trillion of outstanding student loan debt. It is insane. But he has reneged on that promise, as modest as that promise was. And now it turns out that the Biden administration is getting involved in a case where a judge actually decided to discharge hundreds of thousands of dollars of student loan debt for someone who is not healthy enough to pay it back. The fact that the education department under the Biden administration has

filed an appeal in that case tells you quite a bit. So first, before I get to what the Biden administration is doing, I think it's important to give you context about the case. So it involves a student, a former student who has graduated, graduated back in 2010, who's suffering from some very serious health issues and as a result is not gainfully employed and can't pay back loans. Now, on January 14th, the federal judge in Biden's home state of Delaware moved to eliminate nearly $100,000 in student loan debt held by this 35-year-old epileptic man. In response, the Justice Department filed a notice of appeal in the case on behalf of Education Secretary Miguel Cardona. Why would you do that? We're talking about

someone who is not healthy enough to earn a living to pay back those loans. Why would you appeal the judge's decision? Well, let's give you more details on just how difficult it would be for this student to be able to pay back his loans. A bankruptcy judge found that Ryan Wolfson, who held nearly $100,000 in student loan debt, faced undue hardship due to the debt and eliminated all of it. According to the lawsuit, Wolfson graduated from Penn State back in 2010 and struggled to find full-time employment. In 2019, while Wilson was working full-time driving for Uber, Lyft, and Grubhub, he suffered a seizure while driving and totaled his vehicle. I mean, it is an incredibly depressing story.

I mean, my heart goes out to this guy. He's doing what he can. He's trying so, so hard. but because of his health issues, because of the fact that he has these seizures, he's unable to be gainfully employed. And to make matters worse, he's got this $100,000 debt on his shoulders, holding him down, and he's filing for bankruptcy. And because of Biden's bankruptcy bill years ago, students are unable to discharge their student loan debt, even if they file for bankruptcy. The only way you can do it is if you can prove that there is an undue burden that prevents you from being able to pay it back. And even though it is incredibly rare for a judge to side with the individual with the loans,

in this particular case, the judge is like, yo, your situation is terrible. You're not going to be able to pay back these loans. I'm going to help you discharge them through your bankruptcy. The evidence shows, wrote the judge, that despite considerable effort, Wolfson has been chronically un or underemployed since graduating from college, that his sporadic full-time employment has consisted of low-paying gig work or jobs with little prospect of advancement, and that he has avoided living in abject poverty only through significant financial support from his father. The record further shows that Wolfson's career prospects are unlikely to materially improve

over time, and thus his inability to pay his student loan debt will persist. And by the way, just how hard is it to prove that you have an undue burden, that you're or undue hardship that prevents you from being able to pay back your loans? The standard is incredibly high. And the reason why the standard is incredibly high is because Biden fought for that standard to be high as he was championed. his bankruptcy bill. Federal circuit courts have interpreted this language in different cases to demand that debtors show a certainty of hopelessness or intolerable difficulties or a total

incapacity to repay. Now, if I were part of Biden's administration, I would fight pretty aggressively to not appeal the judge's decision here because it's just needlessly cruel. It's so gratuitous. It's so unnecessary. It's so rare for a judge to side with the student debtor in cases like this. And this judge, I believe, made the right choice. But the Biden administration ain't having it. They decided to appeal.

So I don't know what the Biden administration is doing. Because it turns out that the reason why this appeal happened in the first place is because there is a Trump administration left over that the Biden administration has refused to replace. So in its first year, this is Graphic Six, in its first year, the Biden administration

also routinely fought such attempts by people who hold student debt to have it relieved in bankruptcy court. Assistant U.S. attorney Jacob Lackson, who filed the appeal in Wolfson's case, was appointed by a Trump holdover in the Justice Department.

How about we get rid of that Trump pulled over in the justice department. Why isn't Biden doing that immediately? And the blame could fall to attorney general, Merrick Garland, as the attorney general is supposed to appoint assistant U.S. attorneys, explained Hannah Story Brown, a researcher at the Revolving Door Project, an executive branch watchdog. But they can functionally be appointed by their local U.S. attorney, who in Laxon's case is Trump appointee David Weiss, the only Trump appointed U.S. attorney not asked to resign when Biden took office. So why? Like, why is he still there? Why didn't Biden ask him to resign? I mean, it's definitely not a good look for Biden when you put this all

in context. When you consider the fact that he's the one who pushed for and succeeded in getting past that bankruptcy bill, that turned students into indentured servants that made the student loan debt issue so much bigger, a giant crisis in this country. So it's point number one. Then you have this guy campaigning on forgiving a measly $10,000 in student loan debt. He didn't even do that. He just reneged on that. And then he doesn't even have, you know, he doesn't have the time.

What can you do? He doesn't have the time to ask a. Trump appointee to resign so we ensure that the education department doesn't appeal a judge's decision involving a student who has $100,000 in student loan debt, who has cerebral policy and does not have the ability to pay that loan back. I mean, Democrats are looking for any scapegoat, anyone to blame for their lack of popularity, for Biden's sagging approval ratings. But they have no one to blame with themselves. What is Biden doing? Like, what is he busy doing right now? Ask that clown to resign. I mean, this is incredibly disgusting. And by the way, thank you to the Daily Poster for

reporting on this story. Otherwise, we wouldn't know about this. We wouldn't know that there's a Trump appointee still working in the education department and appealing these cases to the detriment of students who are suffering from serious health issues. All right. This next story is a difficult one, but we have a history of being very supportive of BLM on the show. And so it's important to share this information with you to be honest and to make sure that you guys are fully informed on everything. So a new piece in the New York magazine looks into some pretty worrisome financial issues involved in BLM, Black Lives Matter. Now, there had been accusations against the founder, Patrice Cullors, involving, you know, essentially self-dealing, using some of the charitable donations to Black Lives Matter for her own purposes. Those were stories that I mostly ignored, brushed off. As we know, BLM has been attacked and targeted by the right wing since the very beginning.

But all of a sudden, the New York Magazine came out with this piece that was well researched. well-sourced and was also written by an African-American journalist who has been a victim of police violence himself. And so I wanted to hear what his story was, what this story was, and what he found through his reporting. And the findings are worrisome, but I will say this. The biggest issue that I see is the lack of transparency in regard to the money that was raised by Black Lives Matter. And more importantly, where that money was spent, there are. There could be an explanation for a lot of what was written here, but it's really difficult to find an explanation when there's a lack of transparency in regard to the money.

So with that said, I do want to give you some specific details, some excerpts from the piece, and we'll start with what local activists have been saying about Black Lives Matter behind the scenes. Some local activists contend that little of the money raised at the national level makes its way to their organizations or to the families of black people killed by police. In November of 2020, 10 chapters of the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation issued a public call for greater financial accountability. In fact, their statement said this. They were very clear. For years, there has been inquiry regarding the financial operations

of Black Lives Matter global network foundation. And no acceptable process of either public or internal transparency about the unknown millions of dollars donated to the organization, which has certainly increased during the time of pandemic and rebellion. And we're going to get to specific numbers in just a moment. But in response to that criticism, in response to that statement, Black Lives Matter did what I think is the right thing. They finally were a little more transparent. Now, here's what we learned through the report that they released about a year ago. So the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation said it had raised more than $90 million in 2020. It incurred $8.4 million in operating expenses, distributed

21.7 million in grants to more than 30 organizations, and retained some $60 million in its coffers. So that did not quiet the critics. In fact, it led to more questions, and unfortunately it did not, it was not followed up with more transparency. And so who are the critics? What are they saying? These two excerpts really stood out to me in the piece. And I do want to give credit to the reporter here, Sean Campbell, who did the reporting, who wrote this story. Please check out the full piece. We'll include a link in the description box.

After the report was published, two activists in Ferguson, Missouri, Tory Russell and Michael Brown Sr., whose son was killed by a police officer there in 2014, posted a video demanding $20 million for local programs and organizers. The movement that has been catapulted into the limelight has forgotten about Ferguson and the freedom fighters who have literally given their lives to the struggle, Russell said. So that was one of the criticisms following the release of that report. This next one is the one I'm the most worried about. So a few weeks later, in March of 2021, two mothers of victims of police violence, Lisa Simpson

and Samaria Rice, released a statement calling for Black Lives Matter and others to stop capitalizing on their suffering. We don't want or need y'all parading in the streets, accumulating donations, platforms, movie deals, et cetera, off the death of our loved ones, while the families and communities, are left clueless and broken, they wrote. Don't say our loved ones names, period. That's our truth. So a lot of money was raised. Where did the money go? Why is there a lack of transparency in regard to those very questions? And I think that the very victims of police brutality and police violence deserve to know. They deserve to know. Now, Patrice Cullors, who was the head of Black

Lives Matter has since stepped down. She said she wanted to focus on other projects, you know, speaking engagements. She's working on a book and all of that. And so there's the other issue of, well, who do we go to? Like, where's the accountability? This now feels like a leaderless movement. Justin Hansford, who's a law professor at Howard University, he's also the executive director of the Thurgood Marshall Civil Rights Center, argued this. He said, they tell a story that makes it seem like the creation of their hashtag was the start of the movement. I don't think they have directly told lies about their role, but they have a really inflated sense of self-importance in terms of the movement. And so there's been this disconnect between

this national organization and the local chapters or the local activists and organizers. And that disconnect, that frustration, that lack of transparency has really led to a splintering within Black Lives Matter, according to this reporting. So there's also some issues in regard to possible self-dealing. Now, that is something that is being speculated on. That is not something that has been proven. I want to be abundantly clear about that. It's something that could have a clear explanation if there's more transparency. But unfortunately, there isn't transparency, and people are left speculating or guessing as to what's really going on here. Aside from BLM Global Network Foundation, colors has started or helped lead several other organizations, including

three related to criminal justice reform and prisoners' rights, dignity and power now, Justice L.A., and the Justice Teams Network. According to filings, money sometimes flows between the organizations. And so when you see that happening, and on top of that, there's a lack of transparency and a lack of accountability for the very activist and organizers on the ground who want answers to these questions, you're going to run into problems. So, for instance, in 2018, the Justice Teams Network received $400,000, a $400,000 grant to support work for Justice L.A. From its website, Justice L.A. looks like an autonomous group, but users who click to donate are directed to a PayPal account for dignity and power now.

So obviously the money's flowing from all these various organizations that colors had founded. The organizations are linked through a person named Chris, Chrisman Bowers. He is listed as Dignity and Power Now's chief financial officer and as the treasurer of a local political committee reform L.A. jails. In 2019, while working on an ultimately successful ballot initiative, reform L.A. jails collected more than $1.4 million in contributions. Now, where did the money go? $1.4 million is a lot. And people who donate deserve to know where that money is going. How is that money helping to advance police reform, to protect communities, to maybe even fund

programs that help underprivileged youth? Well, more than half was paid out to just four recipients. The group sent more than $270,000 to Bowers' consulting company, as well as some $211,000. to Asha Bandali, a friend of colors who co-wrote her memoir. About $205,000 went to a company, Colors operates with her spouse. And about $86,000 was paid to Trap Heels LLC and Entertainment Clothing and Consulting Company started by Damon Turner, the father of Patrice Colors' child. So that doesn't look good. And it gives the impression of self-dealing.

Something that hasn't been proven, again, want to be clear about that. But if you don't want to give that impression, you should have, as some of the activists noted, radical transparency. People deserve to know how that money is being utilized, where that money is going. And so as a show that's been incredibly supportive of the movement, we've defended Black Lives Matter multiple times in the past, especially against ridiculous, unfounded allegations and assaults from the right wing. I do think it's important to also share this perspective with you, especially because this perspective is coming from local activists on the ground. They want to know what's going on.

They want to know who's leading this movement now. Where is the money going? And when can we finally get some transparency? And I think they deserve to have all those answers given to them. All right, we got to take a quick break. When we come back, we've got more news for you, including some positive news coming from Washington, D.C., where health care workers, or child care workers, I should say, are finally going to get a bump in their pay. Come right back. Ladies and gentlemen, I hope you had your glow sticks ready for today's show.

DJ Bart Kyle on the ones and twos. I love it when he's playing the music. the music that I enjoy. I love hearing that beat drop. So thank you, Bart Kyle. All right. Well, with that said, why don't we move on to our next story? We do have some good news. And it shows you that, you know, maybe there could be some change on a local level, something to consider as, you know, more people are thinking about organizing or political activism. So in response to the ongoing child care crisis, the D.C. Council has approved a program that will send $10,000 checks to child care workers. And this is really, really good news because there is a child care crisis,

partly because child care workers are sick and tired of being underpaid. On average, they make about $12 an hour and do need to have specific training and credentials to be child care workers. And so they're deciding not getting paid enough for this, not worth it. And because of that turnover, because of that shortage of child care workers, child care expense, the expense of child care for parents has gone up tremendously during the pandemic. And I'll get to those numbers in just a moment. But first, a little more detail in regard to this program. So what they're doing is the council raised taxes.

Smart, very smart. So the council raised taxes on the city's highest earners last year. And the members voted at that time to set aside $53 million in the first year of that tax to somehow raise the pay of daycare workers, saying that their work was vital to the city's families, but not sufficiently compensated by their current salaries. And they were right about that. I love the way that they carried this out. Hey, why don't we raise taxes on the highest earners? They can afford to pay their fair share. And we redistribute that money in some way to the child care workers to make up for the fact that they're severely underpaid. Now, at the time when they had passed this proposal to raise the taxes on high earners and create this $53 million fund, they didn't know exactly how they were going to send that money or get that money to the child care workers. Were they going to fund child care centers and encourage them to raise wages? What were they going to do? They didn't know. But now they've decided for the first year of the

program, let's just send them $10,000 checks. And I love it. I think that's the most efficient way to do this. I think it's the smartest way to do this. Just send them the direct checks. Now, child care workers in the D.C. area would need to apply for them. And then the money can be sent to them either in payments or one lump sum. This year to make the workers get the money quickly, which I think is really important. The council is going to give the payment directly to any eligible daycare worker who applies for it. Workers who are or who care for babies and toddlers will be eligible for checks of about $10,000 or even $14,000, depending on whether they work as assistants or leaders of daycare classrooms. I absolutely love this. And look, this has

been an ongoing crisis. I mean, it was an ongoing crisis prior to the pandemic and it was further exacerbated during the pandemic. In fact, PBS did a fantastic documentary about this. that'll help you understand the gravity of the issue in more detail. Let's take a quick look. The pandemic has revealed a lot about the child care system that perhaps people didn't see before, how fragile it is, how low paid the women doing this work are. But I'm not convinced that people really understand the disparities and pay gaps that exist in the child care system.

More than 90% of child care workers in the U.S. are women, and just under half are people of color. On average, they earn only $12 an hour. Most do not receive benefits, and about half are on public assistance. And so when there is a shortage of workers, because they're underpaid and they're not going to take it anymore, they might move on to a different career path, then there is a short supply of child care, which parents desperately, need in order to go back to work, namely mothers. And that has been a huge problem during the pandemic. Since there's a shortage of, you know, child care options right now, mothers can't pay for the child care, which means that they can't go back to work. And so it has a domino effect in the economy. This next clip explains that in greater detail. A lot of women when asked

directly whether or not child care was a factor, we found that upwards of 25% of those who lost their job said it was solely because of child care. And even though the economy is recovering, many women still can't return to their jobs. It's definitely the case that the lack of child care is holding the economy back from its full potential. The degree to which child care is holding us back compared to other factors like the lack of vaccination or the spread of the delta variant, that's really hard to say. But we do know that the lack of child care is certainly holding individual women back and also harming their families in terms of the loss of income. And the incredible thing about all of this is that on one hand, you have lawmakers,

namely GOP lawmakers, arguing that we got to get people back to work. What's going on? All right, all these people who haven't gone back to work yet, what are they doing? Just sitting on their butts like not wanting to work. Look at these couch potatoes. Look at these bums. But these are people who don't have very many options when it comes to their children because we are the only developed nation that absolutely abandons parents after they give birth. I mean, we abandoned parents before they give birth during the, you know, the pregnancy process. We don't even really offer much support. But you can't have a functioning. society where on one hand, you want to force everyone who gets pregnant to carry that pregnancy

to term. That's like the GOP dream. You want to force those mothers to go back to work, but you don't want to offer any support in regard to child care. How does that make any sense? And then to make matters worse, you'll have proposals from the federal government that would require funding, right? So Biden's build back better agenda, tried to tackle child care. But we We would need to raise taxes on the wealthy, right, in order to pay for those kinds of programs. But the wealthy, meaning the business owners, the executives, the shareholders, all of those people, they don't want to see their taxes go up, but they want all those workers back at work. You guys see that tension, that endless conflict in this insane, broken system?

What are the kids supposed to do? What are the mothers supposed to do? It makes no sense. So I'm really happy to see that at least on a local level, the D.C. Council is pushing for something that could actually be a fantastic solution. And not only would it be fantastic in terms of solving a crisis that's ongoing, but it'll be a case study that we can point to in so many different ways. Look at this. Raising taxes to ensure that the wealthy pay their fair share can help us fund these programs that help ordinary workers to make. life easier so they can go to work with no fuss, no must, not have to worry about where they're going to put their kids. And what I love is that they're sending the checks directly to the

workers. Do it that way. That's the best way to do it. All of these weird, like, let's, let's, you know, go around in circles and maybe we fund this and then maybe we fund that and maybe we give the money to the employer. Just give it to the workers. Just give it directly to the workers. They're underpaid, you know they're underpaid, why get a middleman in there, just send it directly to the workers? And that's what they're doing at least in the first year of this program. And I love it. So some good news out of D.C. Hopefully this kind of thinking takes off in other local governments.

But we'll see about that. All right, one final story for you. And this is about the ongoing nonsense regarding political candidates and politicians. investing in the stock market while pretending like they're going to do anything about the companies that they're invested in. So right wing critics of big tech who also happened to be invested in stocks associated with big tech are really making a point to campaign about how they're going to take these Silicon Valley companies to task. They really, really are. And I think this story is an instructive one. I think it's an important one because it'll help you be.

savier in sussing out who's real and who's full of it when they're running for any elected office. What are their financial motives? You don't really have to do any speculating about what's in their heart or what's in their mind. You can just take a good hard look at their behavior. And in this case, we got a ton of GOP candidates who claim that they're going to regulate or break up Silicon Valley companies while simultaneously investing significantly. significantly in those companies. So let's start off with the great state of Ohio. In Ohio, former state GOP chairwoman Jane Timkin has called big tech an arm of the Democrat party and said that their immunity privileges must be stripped. In May, after Facebook said it would

keep former President Trump's account suspended until at least 23, she said the censorship of conservatives must end. It must end. Now, I'm sure she puts her money where her mouth is. is, right? I mean, she disagrees with the business activities, the behavior over at Facebook, which, you know, makes it a little strange that she's spending quite a bit of money investing in the company. So Timkin, who is running in a GOP primary to succeed retiring Senator Rob Portman, hold stock valued at between $800,000 and $1.6 million in Google, Facebook, and Apple, through herself and her family, according to her financial disclosure reports. So why do I share that with you?

It goes beyond saying like, oh, look at the hypocrite, which, sure, that's a perfectly fine point. I think it's a boring point, though. I think what this is really about is how we have all this political theater going on, and I'm so sick of it, and I'm tired of Americans falling for it. Homegirl isn't going to do a damn thing about Facebook. You know why? Why? Because that would hurt her financial health. That would hurt her investment. And it's a significant investment. $800,000 to $1.6 million. It's a lot of money to invest in companies

that you're vociferously speaking out against, please. There's another example. Businessman Jeff Bardo, who is running to fill Senator Pat Toomey C, has tweeted about the need to fight back against big tech's aggressive silencing of conservatives, and that big tech must be reined in. Well, his financial disclosure report shows that Bartos, through his spouse, hold stock valued at between $200,000 and $500,000 in Google. He holds stock in Apple valued between $300,000 and $600,000 through a spouse and in a joint account. And look, sometimes they do this cutesy maneuver where they'll have their spouse do the investments, but it's the same household. You ain't going to do a damn thing toward any company that's helping you bring in income for your household. And by the way,

this is not a Democrat or Republican thing. This is a corrupt politician both sides issue. We've been talking about members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, investing in individual stocks, And we've talked about how they consistently beat the stock market, as if they're like these genius investors who somehow know better than every. Well, they do somehow know better than everyone else. They're privy to information that we're not privy to. But while that's one part of the problem, the other part of the problem is you're not going to regulate corporations if you know that those corporations will take a financial hit from the regulations. That would mean that the value of the shares you've invested in would take a hit. You would lose money.

Who would be dumb enough to do that? So again, this isn't about speculating about hearts and minds. It's about looking at incentives and disincentives. This system is sick. If you want to be a public servant, then you should be a public servant. Public servant means you're making sacrifices for the greater good. You're making sacrifices because you're wanting to represent the best interests of your fellow Americans. That's what a public servant does.

That's what a public servant should believe. But what this system does is it encourages the worst people in society to look at elected office as an opportunity to cash in. They see it as a good business move for themselves. Like that's the problem. It tracks the wrong kinds of people. They should not be allowed to invest in individual stocks, period. Now, here we're talking about candidates. If you're a candidate, you can go ahead and invest in whatever you want.

But don't be invested in companies that you're then going to pretend like you're going to regulate or do something about. It's nonsense. They're not going to do a damn thing. Now, going back to Jeff Bartos, he's the one who's running to Phil Pat Toomey's seat. He defended his investment, saying this. If anything, it proves, I'm not afraid to state my conviction. Even if it's against my financial interests, I can advocate for policies that I think are right as a shareholder who owns stock. I believe that the company needs to change for the better. Yeah, except talk is cheap and we've all experienced that. While we follow political news, while we see what candidates end up doing once they're elected into office, they'll say one thing and then they'll renege on all their promises. I'm so tired of hearing them talk about all these amazing things they're going to do. Oh, they were. We're going to break up big tech.

We're going to regulate the fossil fuel industry. We're going to invest in renewable energy. Whatever the lie is, I'm sick of it. It's all theater. Again, look at their incentives and disincentives. Finally, there are Democrats in this story too. But surprisingly, there are some examples of Democrats who are not corrupted by this process. So Pennsylvania lieutenant governor John Federman and Representative Connor Lamb,

two of the Democratic candidates looking to flip Senator Toomey's seat do not hold stocks in these tech giants based on their disclosures. They've also come out in support of proposals to ban congressional stock trading. See, that I can get behind. Because again, talk is cheap. Saying that you're going to do something means absolutely nothing in politics these days. But if you put your money where your mouth is, if you show that you are not personally invested in the very companies that you claim you're going to do something about, then you've got a little more credibility. So, just thought that was a fascinating story.

Of course, this is the kind of stuff that goes by the wayside. When we talk about corruption, it definitely exists in the form of unlimited campaign donations from the wealthy to political candidates and congressional lawmakers. But that's just one side of the story. The thing that they care about, I would argue more, is their household income and how much money they're personally making off of being invested in individual stocks.

That is a massive conflict of interest. It absolutely should be banned. And unless we do that, really, any discussion about policy is just a moot point. All right, we got to take a break. When we come back, John Iderola will be joining me to talk about the whole whoopee debacle. We'll also talk about Lindsey Graham getting humiliated by Donald Trump. One of my favorite stories of the day. Come 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 dot co slash t yt i'm your host jank huger and i'll see you soon